Talk:Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks

Misinformation and rumors

This page is created in the interest of having a record of the rumors and misinformation that can arise in the face of tragedy. It is not intended to be disrespectful of those who, perhaps innocently, might relay such information believing it to be true.

Claim-specific Discussion

Pentagon not hit by plane

Re: Pentagon was not hit by a plane (Probably mostly directed to Arno).

If this page is going to have any relevance it should be to enlighten people. Enlightenment is not by spreading misinformation and not by withholding information. It is instead enligtening people on what is documented. A good example of this is showing that the picture of "Tourist Guy/Waldo/Kilroy" is in fact fake with links to proofs of this. I would love to see this page evolve to something like badastronomy.com where myths and rumors are dispelled with facts.

When Arno claims that the french website shows plane wreckage he has obviously has not visited the french website (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm). There is no plane wreckage. I will be happy to be proven wrong, but I have yet to see any pictures of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon. If you find it please include a complete URL to the picture.

Repporters and photographers were at the Pentagon long before the fire was extinguished. It is unlikely that there had been a cleanup crew removing every piece of the plane and it is unlikely that the whole plane vanished into the building. So why isn't there a lot of pictures showing wreckage of wings and fuselage?

So far claiming that there was a plane crash at Pentagon is in my oppinion spreading disinformation as there is so far no proofs of this. If we really want the NPOV then the main article on Sep 11 should state that some people think that a plane crashed at Pentagon.

I am not insinuating a conspiration here. For all I know it might have been a missile fired by a terrorist. But if you claim that it was a plane and is not willing to neither supply pictures of the wreckage nor explain why no wreckage is on the pictures taken then I will deem your story not trustworthy.

User:tange

"Some people"? Make that the mass majority of people along with all officials. That is the majority view so that is what we give the majority of our text to. An even more important question would be; if the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon then where the hell did it go? Of course, somebody is going to say that space aliens abducted the whole plane or the Loch Ness monster ate it. But we aren't going to give much, if any, weight to those conspiracy theories. In the future please place new comments at the end of a talk page. --mav

Tange, see below. Arno

Too many coincidences when one steps back.... If I was an evil fascist in the style of dubya's posse, I'd think long and hard about the best way to turn this country into a dictatorship. The Constitution only allows temporary dictatorship via wartime powers, so what better way to become dictator than by declaring a war on an intangible enemy that can never be defeated? Maybe this should go under conspiracy theory, but something ain't right. Perhaps when Ronald Reagan declared a war on drugs, he was really trying to become a dictator. Cheers to dubya's faction for outsmarting Reagan's faction. You must admit, it's the perfect plan for constitutional dictatorship. And the IAO... sigh.... User:MarcusAurelius

Re: Pentagon was not hit by a plane

' In March 2002 the US authorities released photographs from a surveillance camera. Samples, complete with the time at the bottom corner, can be found on this BBC webpage and they show an explosion and the plane about to hit the building . '

Why don't people actually have a REALLY close look at the photos?

You can see an object that is far smaller than a 757 AFTER the explosion, which then climbs away above the Pentagon building. Additionally, in the first picture, you can see something that looks remarkably similar to a drone or a missile approaching the Pentagon.

I'll leave it up there, bet if anybody thinks the same way after looking at these pictures, contact me.

User:Qwitchibo

But what a pity you did not attempt to write it up in an NPOV manner rather than just turning it into a load of assertions. 62.30.150.99 16:16 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

A 757 plane approaching the Pentagon at high speed would indeed resemble a 'drone or missile' - indeed , that's just what that plane was to the terrorists responsible.

Arno

Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

It seems the author of this paragraph tries to discredit the france website (what is mysterious about it?). The france website does not try to answer any questions, but it tries to ask the simple question: Where is the plane? I have not seen this answered anywhere. In neither of the surveillance camera pictures (http://www.startribune.com/images/24/) can you see a plane. --tange

Tange,

You're right in that the French website does not show any pictures of a plane - it used to, I distinctly remember a priceless photo arguing that this piece could not be a fragment of plane as the grass underneath it was green. But it does not now.

A picture of a Flight 77 fragment can be found on http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=54. See also http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html , message [020319], for an eyewitness account re the fragments.

There is a lot of very emotional talk on the subject of Flight 77. There is that webpage that was here that argued only there is one photo, therefore it's a government conspiracy, is a good example. I'm most reluctant to accept this as fact.

I kept in that mathematical page, if only because I could not quickly shoot it down. It needs going through slowly, which is something I have not done. It does get the benefit of the doubt accordingly. But for me, it lacks credibility that a plane moving at hundreds of km per hour could not have covered a distance of a few hundred metres or so in 4 seconds.

BTW, it was me who put that phony tourist photo story here, and thanks for locating that webpage on Peter the Hungarian. Poor fellow, he must be feeling embarassed about that phony tourist photo.

Further to the above, see for another fragment picture.

It was a picture for a Flight 77 article (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00030.htm) ,from a New Zealand website. The article itself criticises the conspiracy with accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the crash and recollections of wreckage being taken away.

Another basis for the claim is the observations by many eye witnesses who saw other aircraft in the area. US authorities have said that they have identified a civilian aircraft that was in the area, and that it had nothing to do with the downing of Flight 93.

According to http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/main/dayof911.html which seems to be reliably sourced, there were several planes including both military and civilian within close range to Flight 93. In particular see the entry for (Before 10:06 a.m.)

'au contraire', it is not. Arno 06:43, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to express my concern over the censorship done by Graft. I had put the Pentagon crash section in what I though was a more NPOV light, as the official pictures show too little to be conclusive. I also placed a ISBN reference to Meyssan's book, which is obviously a relevant piece of information whatever your opinion on the issue. Now, I can accept that people edit what I write to increase the information quantity, but not to censor things they apparently do not like.

Graft's revert removed commentary on the camera pictures (please look at them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1861977.stm) firsthand) hardly show anything that can be uniquely identified as a plane. He also edited out an observation on why the Pentagon, while being heavily surveilled (please don't try to counter this one...), has not managed to simply show a clear picture that could identify the plane and put all rumours to rest.

He also reinstated a clearly NPOV definition of those who doubt a plane hit the Pentagon as "conspiracy theorist". I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also think anyone who believes AA77 was what crashed on the Pentagon as gullible as those who believed in the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I did not insert my personal opinions though, but only added more information.

If you think you have proof that AA77 crashed on the Pentagon, link to pictures, anything, please integrate it in the article, don't take out relevant information just because it does not confirm your Weltanschauung. Such acts of blind censorship are a shame on those who perform it. Orzetto 15:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, Graft censored the parts I reinstated, instead of integrating anything that might prove his point. I am quite upset and wonder what action might be taken against this misbehaviour. In his history commentary he pointed to a link, which he had not included in the article (I included it for sake of completeness). However, it just shows the same images as the BBC website.

I don't like edit wars, I hope the question can be settled. Orzetto 18:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem pointing out that the camera pictures don't decisively show a plane; this is important to understand the conspiracy theory, but I believe this text is unsupported speculation: "Furthermore, the low altitude of the plane seems unlikely, hitting the external wall instead of crashing through the roof, which would have allowed to attack the inner rings, where more important offices are located."

According to the official story, the Pentagon was not these hijackers' target, and after rapidly dropping altitude they chose the enormous and obvious Pentagon building. Second-guessing their possibly improvised plans is not sensible unless you present evidence that they studied and targetting the building all along.

As for debris, planes that actually collide with structures often fair poorly. I've yet to see a picture of a large piece of Concorde debris (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/851119.stm), for example, and the plane hit a building far smaller weaker than the Pentagon. We do have a link (http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm) to such debris in the Pentagon. Cool Hand Luke 20:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of the text was unsupported speculation or insinuation (like the text about the security cameras). This is not reasonable. Nor is this the place for a debate. If you wish to describe the theory, describe the claims in a single, coherent paragraph, followed by countervailing evidence. Your back-and-forth style is not good. Graft 22:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The official story is quite strange: why would the hijackers decide to drop altitude, losing both oversight and potential energy that could have been used to strike their target? In any case, I think such questions and observations should be integrated in the article, rather than removed, to present the reader a spectrum of opinions, and not just the "official" truth.

About the Concorde, with a Google search I found this image (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/debris/concorde.jpg) that shows a fairly intact engine. Anyway, please integrate any links pointing in support of both theories in the article.

Graft, if you can see a plane in the security cameras, please edit the image, add some enlightening arrow that allows us to see the plane, as I don't see it, and upload it (it's work of the US government and is therefore in the public domain). The fact that the US government did not release pictures of the plane crashing in one of the most heavily surveilled buildings in the world seems to me quite relevant, and at least worthy of note. I would anyway like to know why you removed also e.g. the ISBN of Meyssan's book, as this is a central document in the debate; it does not seem to me "speculation".Orzetto 13:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Email misinformation

I received an email today saying that an Afgan left a letter to his girl friend on Sept 10, asking her not to take any flight on Sept 11 and not to go to any shopping mall on Halloween. It was said that the letter is now in FBI's hand. The letter implied that there is a second phase of the terrorist attacks and the targets will be the trick or treaters. Is it a hoax? I guess only time can tell.

The AP reported that this was unsubstantiated. The email was traced back to a particular person, who apparently has no first-hand knowledge of the event and regrets passing the note along. See http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wtae/20011011/lo/924697_1.html. Will post to main page.

Evil Bert

Someone posted a note on the "Bert is Evil" website photo (had they not, I would have done so), and I added some commentary to it, including links to external web pages on the matter. It seems appropriate to me, but I also want to acknowledge that many people might reasonably be upset about juxtaposing this absurd story with others that deal with the grievous personal tragedies thousands of people around the world are experiencing as a result of the attacks. I hope it will in no way be seen as trivializing the situation or the losses experienced by the victims, their families and their friends. --User:RjLesch

Bush Knew

More discussion on this in the "Title of Article and Discussion of Classification" section below

Incidentally, the "Bush knew" business is in a real void right now. This little allegation still seems to be in the unproven category. It perhaps best left that way right now.

I agree. Quadell 16:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great! Arno 08:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bin Talal-Racism?

This brings me to another point. VerilyVerily, a man is innocent until proven guilty. I thought the war on terrorism was meant to defend such principles? If you have not any proof that Bin Talal's a terrorist or otherwise al-Qaeda connected, then I suggest that you leave it at that. You do seem to be stopping just short of saying that he is Arabic in origin, therefore he has Al-Qeada links. Some readers may just interpret what you are saying as being just that.

There may be legitimate disagreements on how best to word it, but I don't think anyone's being racist about it. Quadell 16:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it may well sound racist. That was a concern that I had. Arno 08:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno 08:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm just saying that asserting outright that he has "no connection" with al-Qaeda is beyond what we know. Saying he has "no known connection" is neutral with respect to this. This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. Saying LBJ had "no connection" to the JFK assassination would not be right, even though he almost certainly didn't and should be presumed innocent in court. The War on Terrorism is not about standards for encyclopedia articles; that principle applies to prosecution by the state. (And incidentally potential ties between the Saudi royal family and bin Laden are not as wild as simply due to them being "Arabic".) -- V V 09:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was using the term 'Arabic' rather loosely, that is true. But you seem to have caught my drift there (I think) - just because one Saudi Arabian is a much-wanted criminal does not mean that they all are.

You've missed my other point. Supposing I said "VerilyVerily has no known connection with the Mafia" - how would one interpret that? There's an implication there that you are an unproven mafioso.

It's this kind of implication that the article can do without - which did seek to rebut a furphy foolishly set off in the early days of the September 11 crisis.

By the way, the 'whatever' has now come out of the sentence you consider most controversial. It now reads "Bin Tilal has no Al-Qaeda connections."

Arno 10:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(PS just in case anyone did start wondering.... VerilyVerily is not a mafioso, period. This was a very hypothetical example that I used.)

I perceive "no known" as being a fairly emphatic way of stating that he is not believed to have any connection to al-Qaeda. If you feel as though this choice of language insinuates that there really might be a connection, perhaps you can propose alternative wording. As stands, it asserts outright something which is not certain. (Cf. LBJ above.) The whatever is a minor point. --- V V 16:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FYI, the new items I just added were sourced from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080840/. Mdchachi 14:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iraq Connection

Under the Iraq connection section, at the end, there is the statement: "The fact that the Bush administration has not found any clear links indicates that none exist." What is this supposed to mean? Why is it so emphatic? Is this NPOV? It seemed rather odd when I read it and I would like to know what everyone thinks should be done with this. SilentOpen 00:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice that before. Unless somebody objects, I think it should certainly be NPOV'd changed to something more like "...any clear links casts doubt on their existance." CHL

I concur. Quadell 13:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Face of the Smoke Devil

I don't believe the fact that the devil is not mentioned with horns in the Bible is relevent. This fact should perhaps go into devil, but in this article it's irrelevent becuase the whole claim revolves around the coincidental similarity to an icon that's considered evil--whether Biblical or not. Even people that hold that the cloud is Satan's calling card don't believe the cloud is Satan himself. To advance an absurd devil's advocate: hornless Satan could have used a horned cloud because he knew that would be more recognizable.

Besides, it's out of place considering the explaination for the likeness is coincidence and the mind's capacity for pattern recognition. CHL 02:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Luke, people were seeing the devil in that smoke. See this page (http://www.gadflyonline.com/10-08-01/art-devilphoto.html) as an example of what I mean. The bIblical reference was meant to counter this - ie that there is nothing in the Bible that actually describes the Devil's face. Arno 03:36, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, they are seeing the image of Satan. The recognizability of this symbol doesn't depend on the Bible. Some have described certain religious paintings as inspired in spite of the fact that Jesus, say, is never physically described in the Bible. By the same token, it's concievable the devil actually created the image, not because that's what he looks like, but because that's what he's thought to look like. At any rate, the Biblical criticism superflous and really doesnt counter very much. CHL 17:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

So you are saying that this is the face of the devil, even though the Bible does not say so? Arno 02:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

No, but are you saying it's not an image of a devil? Again, as a devil's advocate, Satan could have created the image whether he "looks like" the face or not. This is consistent with belief in the Biblical devil: he would use whatever face that inspires terror. Therefore, the line doesn't really argue against the ludicrous claim of it being his work. CHL 19:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is the popular (but not necessarily the correct) image of what the Devil may look like. Arno 05:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. In this case, what image is "correct" is not relevent to the 9-11 photo's resemblence to a popular icon. CHL 00:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Claims that the towers were blown up with explosives

I believe, that this should be moved to the "could not be proved to be false"-section.

"However, most engineers view the collapse as sensible and even predictable given the conditions." This is not true. Even the Architects of the WTC stated, that there were strong enough to withstand the impact.

And it did! It could not, however, withstand both that and the fire. Structural weakening is the reason insulation is even placed on steel beams. No ordinary fire could melt steel, but it's important to have insulation to prevent such collapses. Anectdotal accounts suggest the insulation was blown off, and this was a large contributer to the collapse. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The impact furthermore blew insulation off of steel beams. Because of these factors, the steel was quickly heated enough to lose significant strength." This is totally stupid. Because the insulation blew off, and because there was also office furniture and stuff burning we saw such a black cloud of smoke. And this is why the fires never reached the 1700°F possible. It is in fact, an argument against the "pancake collapse".

It's not "totally stupid". Steel, as the Journal of Minerals, Metals & Materials so nicely explained in the link, loses half of its strength by 650 degrees (1200°F), entirely plausible even for the oxygen-starved fire in the towers. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"This view has been officially confirmed by forensic analysis of key components of debris." This is not true. The debris was not examined, but shipped away. It is true, however, that this view was officially confirmed, by FEMA, but without a proper explanaition. It is also incorrect, that the towers could have fallen only straight down. If you look vigilant at the second collapse, you see the towers top with the antenna tilting to the side at least 50 feet. It then disappears in the smoke.

There is plenty of evidence, that supports the Claim that the towers were blown up with explosives. For example seismic records, the architects statements and the "pulling" of WTC 7 which was confirmed by Silverstein in an interview.

I believe this is important. --217.224.142.247 06:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FEMA at the least claimed to analyze components, and does seem to have possession of debris. Also note that the building entire itself could not have fallen any other way, although smaller, less massive objects could. Cool Hand Luke 06:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flight 93 shot down by the military

As the crash site debris trail was several miles long, this often presented as evidence that the plane broke up mid-air and hence was shot down by the air force.

Surely if a large commercial airliner like a 757 was put through an extreme manoeuvre in flight (by the hijackers or passengers), this would be enough to over-stress the airframe/wings and cause the aircraft to break up? I am reminded of the crash of a TU-144 “Concordski” at the 1973 Paris air show. This craft disintegrated when the pilot tried to pull out of a decent after engine stall. Could somebody from an aviation/engineering background verify this explanation? --Ade myers 23:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20$ Bill

I tested this on about a dozen persons. They saw nothing. It only works if you tell them before what they are supposed to see. Simple Psytrick.

Missing image
Http://www.clydelewis.com/pics/pic03.jpg
image:

Missing image
Http://www.clydelewis.com/pics/pic04.jpg
image:

What have hidden images on the $20 bill got to do with rumours of the Sep. 11 attacks ? It is totally inappropriate, given the nature of the article (which is about rumours of the attacks). The existence of a coincidence doesn't mean that it should be included (as it means and reveals nothing). What's even more inappropriate is the statement, 'For additional fun: You just have folded a little $20-"plane".' - that's not even funny or humorous. Therefore, if the person responsible for that section doesn't remove it, I will. -- Mpatel

It's an odd coincidence, and its very oddness makes it seem implausible, much like the "smoke demon" thing. Like the "smoke demon," the $20 bill's image is a result of pareidolia, and both rumors could easily be dismissed as false because of their strangeness. Their inclusion here serves to show that the rumors that there are such images are true, but that the images aren't some supernatural force at work, merely the mind's propensity for picking out familiar shapes. It might have made more sense in the context in which it was created, back when the article had "true," "false," and "undetermined" rumor sections. This was a rumor that turned out to be true. The rumors from certain conspiracy theorists that these instances of pareidolia mean something extraordinary are not true.
And the bit about "fun" doesn't suggest that the folding trick is humorous, merely that it's interesting. It does sound callous though, so I'm changing it. Mr. Billion 20:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Other Attacks section (esp. Washington)

This article states that both WCBS (NY) and CNN reported that police claimed there were gunshots fired at the State Department, FBI Headquarters, and NASA Headquarters. I'm pretty skeptical of this entire section, partly due to the writing style, but given the nature of the section - rumors, after all - I suppose it has to stay. I would like to point out a few things, though. I worked in downtown DC on September 11th, a few blocks from the White House. Naturally we were all terrified and desperate to share information; this caused rumors to fly throughout the day and for several days after. The most frequent rumor I heard involved a car bomb at the State Department (in Foggy Bottom), not shots fired. There were also rumors of the Capitol being the site of an incident; this may have been tied to the fact that the entire building was evacuated at 09:45. My memory of that day is pretty damn clear (as I imagine it is for many people), and I don't remember hearing anything about FBI headquarters (in the Downtown BID near Chinatown) or NASA headquarters (near L'Enfant Plaza). Again, the most prominent explicit rumor was a car bomb at the State Department, though other rumors circulated throughout the day. Now, is my memory a valid source? I don't know. I can't point you to specific citations for this. Again, given the nature of this section, I suggest that my memory is as valid a source as any - after all I did hear those rumors. In general though, I'm not too impressed with the "claims of other attacks" section of this article. It might be worth rewriting altogether. I'd appreciate any feedback others might have about my comments here.

-Etoile 06:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ideally every rumour should at least have a citation to back it up. If you can't find anything at all about the "rumour" on the internent or published anywhere, then it should be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can dig that. Out of curiosity, if I had written about the car-bomb-at-the-State-Dept in my blog at the time, not realizing it was just a rumor, would that have been considered a sufficient source? What if I weren't the one writing about the rumor, but rather somebody found my blog and saw it? I guess I should look up Wikipedia rules on things like blog citations, but since - once again - we are talking about rumors, I'm wondering what S.O.P. would be on this. Thanks again.

-Etoile 00:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm very leery of using blogs. If there's no evidence that a rumour gained any "traction", then I don't think it belongs either. Traction would be defined by repetition in a number of different sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoops

New sub-topic, hopefully non-controversial. My initial reaction to the attacks, as a man walked past my desk at whatever time it was in London when the bad stuff happened, my initial mental picture was of a broken light aircraft protruding from near the top of one of the towers, and nothing more than that. I believe there had been an attempt to crash a Cessna into the White House whilst President Clinton was out shopping or something, and my initial reaction, in the few minutes that remained before there was such a thing as the 'September 11, 2000 attacks', was that there had been an accidental plane crash. Certainly this seems to have been a common opinion, one shared by President Bush, according to this website [1] (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html) which I assume is anti-Bush (it has 'grassroots' on the front page'). It's not quite misinformation - that would imply deliberate intent - and as rumours went, it survived until somebody turned on the television. It might only merit a single sentence, "Initial reports on (mainstream news channel 1, mainstream news channel 2) were careful to avoid explicit mention of an 'attack', as there were still doubts as to whether the impact was accidental or not, doubts later cited by (posh report, book)" or something similar, probably shorter.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about Title of Article and Classification of Claims

Isn't the over-arching term "disinformation"? "Misinformation and rumor" is a clunky title, and "Disinformation" means the same thing, without differentiating for intent (which is basically impossible in any case, since a good misinformation campaign hides its origins to appear like innocent rumor - one of the many things that 'disinformation' as a term assumes is going on).

I have a complaint about the POV in this article. I think the title is misleading. "Misinformation and rumors. . ." could mean that all examples are both incorrect and a rumor, or it could mean that some examples are incorrect while others are (possibly true) rumors. I don't think a claim should be called "misinformation" unless any reasonably person would be convinced that it is untrue. For example, the Nostradomus prediction can be positively confirmed as false. Other rumors should not, I believe, be labelled "misinformation" without compromising nPOV.

In particular, to label the claim "Bush knew in advance that the terrorists attacks would happen" as misinformation is a false characterization, it seems to me. I certainly know of no evidence that Bush knew that the WTC and Pentagon would be attacked on that specific day. But the claim that he knew that "the terrorist attacks would happen" is, I believe, not at all disproven. A New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/10PANE.html) from today is entitled "Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says" That doesn't prove Bush knew, but it certainly belies the claim that "Bush knew" is "misinformation".

I would prefer that the "Bush Knew" section be removed, since it has not been proven false. (To be sure, the claim that Israel framed Arabs cannot be scientifically proven false either, but I would not remove that entry. The difference is, in my opinion, that there is no circumstancial evidence to support that claim, and one would expect that there would be. But there exists circumstancial evidence, even if inconclusive, that Bush knew the terrorist attacks would happen, e.g. his opposition to the 9/11 Commission, his reluctance to declassify the August 6th PDB, etc.)

In summary, I'm not asserting that Bush knew. I'm asserting that "misinformation" is not a fair characterization of the claim. And I think this article should reflect that.

Quadell 16:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this could best be handled by renaming the page "Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks". Then a subdivision for "Debunked Rumors" could include most of these, and a section on "Rumors that have not been proven false" could mentioning that the majority of responsible figures do not believe them these rumors, but they cannot not be proven untrue. These could include "Pentagon was not hit by a plane", perhaps "'Credible threat' against Bush", perhaps "(Jewish) Conspiracy to frame Arabs", "US military aircraft shot down Flight 93 to stop it reaching Washington", "The towers were blown up", and "Bush knew in advance that the terrorists attacks would happen", with a note of the ongoing controversy and investigation. 12

Does that sound like a suffiently npov way to handle it?

Quadell 18:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The proposed renaming sounds like a sufficently stupid way of handling this page. You are in effect saying that everything here are rumours. That, by your own reclassifying, is not the case.

There's no need to be rude. A rumor is a claim that might be true or might not. How would you word it that wouldn't be, as you put it, "stupid"? Quadell 16:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Misinformation is something that's false, period. You've identified quite a few of these yourself. It would be wrong to classify them as rumours. That's why I felt that the renaming was stupid.Arno 08:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, in seeking to classify these things, you've probably opened up a real can of worms. There is likely to be some debate as to what is false and what is unproven, even with your disclaimer under the 'unproven' heading taken into account.

That's probably true. Controversial topics, by their nature, are often contested. But it's better than classifying them all as "misinformation", in my opinion. Quadell 16:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

So did you want a title that reads "Misinformation and Rumours" or not? I'm confused. My main point, though, is that you are needlessly setting off a hornet's nest by deciding which is which. Arno 08:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Arno, that's the title of the page and any doubts can be noted in the entries themselves. However, because you went ahead and changed it anyway, I moved the detonation claim back into misinformation while strengthening the language to make the appropriateness of this classification more clear. I'm not as knowledgeable about the other claims (former Metallurgical Engineering major), but would imagine several more of them are simply misinformation. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pentagon/Firefighters

If one can establish the veracity and context of those firefighter quotes, perhaps we can cite it as fact.

I believe one of the firefighters whom the words are usually attributed to is Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher (though I have seen references to others too). He said (quoted from this page (http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/index.php), though it's mentioned in many places)

Q (some reporter): "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" A (Ed Plaugher): "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

The point usually made by conspiracy theorists is that when a jet crashes, there are usually lots of debris (this is illustrated in the Flash documentary (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf) and many other places) - planes do not just burn in the fuel, but this is exactly what officials want everyone to believe. Paranoid 20:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That "documentary" makes Michael Moore sound like a paragon of objectivity. There are rarely large sections intact from collisions and such, and this plane would collided with a reinforced building. But at any rate, I think we can agree the statement "Firefighters working inside the building reported no debris from the Boeing 757 plane" is unjustified, yes? CHL 01:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. May be you can rephrase what was said by Ed Plaughter to explain that no large sections were found that would clearly show that a Boeing hit the building? Regardless of whether this proves anything or not, this (albeit inconclusive) evidence that is often used by the conspiracy theorists (for the lack of better evidence either pro or contra). As for the large sections, as far as I am aware (not being a FAA specialist) usually there are large sections, and they are quite prominent, judging from most TV news reports. I don't recall ever hearing about a plane almost completely evaporating in the jet fuel fire before (or after) the 9/11. Paranoid 14:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I didn't say crash, I said "collisions". When planes collide with things, they fair poorly. Midair collisions often results in very small debris scattered over a dozen or more square miles. At any rate, there were debris inside the pentagon (as purportedly shown in the link I added). As for using the quote in context: go for it. Just don't write crap like "Firefighters working inside the building reported no debris from the Boeing 757 plane" CHL 00:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For comparison, the Concorde hit a building much smaller and weaker than the pentagon but was almost unrecognizable in the rubble of the wrecked hotel. CHL 00:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

excellent page

this article is terrific. i am glad wikipedia is utilized to clear up rumors of such magnatude. and the page is useful. last year, before the invasion of iraq, a student in my U.S. history class told me that oliver north had long ago warned us about osama bin laden. my student's brother was in the military, was about to participate in the invasion, and sent her a lengthy email that explained the oliver north prediction. having already read this wikipedia article, i recalled the hoax. that night i was able to come to wikipedia, find the information about the misinformation, go to oliver north's statement about the misinformation, and present it to my student.

keep up the good work. Kingturtle 14:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is very POV

Titles should not presume to conclude anything within an article. Certainly it's still disputed whether the flight 93 passangers crashed the plane and the article's rhetoric currently almost excludes the possibility the hijackers crashed the plane after the passengers revolted. Why does this article mix obvious facts, debunked rumors and disputed facts so recklessly? This article needs a massive clean up. "Rumors that have not definitively been proven false", come on, this article is psychological word game wonder land. zen master T 08:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone read this talk page? zen master T 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is a POV mess, and the worthwhile information has already been produced in better formats in other articles; e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel. And apparently no-one reads this talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well "conspiracy theory" in the tile also is pretty much POV when you think about it. This article should be removed or pared down if the content is elsewhere? zen master T 06:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are a real phenomenon, and it's not POV to describe them that way. Regarding this article, I don't know what to make of it; perhaps a RfC would help. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But conspiracy theory is a very very loaded and disputed term so using it for a title presumes the status of the theory as a conspiracy which might be very disputed. The term conspiracy theory literally should mean theories about people conspiring but it's been co-opted to mean a kooky nut job theory with no basis in reality. Instead of conspiracy theory we should use "highly questionable theory" which actually would be less POV in my opinion. The term conspiracy theory is used to discredit wouldn't you agree? And so people don't even consider the possibility of the theory, which still is an invalid usage even if 90% of the theories generally have no basis in reality. If there is any even remote dispute about anything called a "conspiracy theory" then it would be POV for that to be in the title in my opinion. zen master T 17:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this case, "conspiracy theories" means "theories about people consipiring, which have no basis in fact, and which have much evidence proving their falsity". I think the usage is valid, since they are indeed discredited. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the article should do the discrediting factually rather than the title. Do you agree that if there is even a shred of dispute about their status as conspiracy theories then they should not be listed in this article? It also seems rather suspicious for the article to be recklessly mingling obviously inaccurate accusations with arguably credible theories. Putting conspiracy theory in the title leaves no room for debate, discussion or criticism. zen master T 19:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists always dispute their status as conspiracy theories. In any event, that's a discussion for other articles, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I plan to post on the other conspiracy theory articles as well, but I thought I'd start with the most egregious exaxample which is this article. zen master T 23:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basis for NPOV dispute

I believe there are multiple problems with this article. Since I have not decided how best to fix the problems and want others' input I have added the NPOV header to the article rather than just fix the problems directly myself, yet.

First, see above for a discussion about the title. It is POV to state factually in a title that everything in this article is a rumor or misinformation for all time.
If this article is about "misinformation and rumors" about september 11, then why does it have a section titled "claims that turned out to be true"? That does not make sense.
The article combines obvious factual errors as if they were rumors. Initial estimates of the number of casualities for various nationalities is hardly misinformation or a rumor. If the discrepancy is simply an inaccurate initial estimate of the number of casualties any article should state it thusly.
Many of the rumors or allegations are completely uncited. Where does the Snapple conspiracy theory come from? Seems related to other conspiracy allegations vs Snapple that they constained ethnicity specific bio warefare inside but there is no mention of that conspiracy theory here (is that an attempt to further marginalize conspiracy theories having to do with Snapple?). That Osama bin Laden owned Snapple? That is just silly.
The entire claims not proven either way section is ridiculous. If something is still debatable either way and there is controversy why is it listed in an article that purpots to list items of "misdirection and rumor"? They should be removed from a retitled version of this article.
Claims that Mohammed Atta was a "known" terrorist are debatably valid
It is still debatable whether a U.S. fighter shot down flight 93, or the passengers revolted, or the hijackers crashed the plane when the passengers revolted so nothing having to do with those should be in a retitled version of this article.
Stating that Iraq's involvement in 9/11 is not proven (but still including it this article) seems to be an attempt at downplaying a ton of evidence that indicates Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That section should not remain in a retitled version of this article.
The airline stock trading investigation is ongoing I believe.
This entire article needs 10 times as many citations for every claim both that there really was such a rumor, and that the rumor was successfully debunked.
Claims which turned out to be true should be removed from a retitled version of this article
The other rumors section at the bottoms seems like they are all still open cases without definitive resolution.

zen master T 20:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page could use some cleaning up, but an encyclopedia does not have to pretend that there is not a preponderence of opinion regarding some of the more conspiracist claims being made. What evidence is there that Flight 93 was shot down? Who says the stock trading investigation is ongoing? etc. If you would like to divide up the page, put the disproven material here, and then decide what material should be moved to another page. --Cberlet 18:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been poking around. What if we leave this page for clearly disproven material, and divide up the rest into material for which there is no substantial evidence and substantial refutation, which can go to:

Then material which has more substantial data and no credible refutation can go to a page titled something like

9/11 unresolved questions and claims.

Some of the more substantial material on prior notice and holes in the official report could go to the new page.--Cberlet 19:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having "conspiracy theory" in the title is POV. Wikipedia doesn't generally state directly that something is "unproved" or worse yet "disproved", we merely present the depth and/or breadth of evidence that supports a theory or claim. If even a single piece of counter evidence exists the word "disproved" should definitely not be used. When a title or article states directly that something is "disproved" or "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory" it has the effect of causing readers not to even think about the issue. Users should read neutrally presented information, think about the evidence and the issue, and then decide for themselves, all those article violate that. zen master T 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The classic rebut to this is to ask if Wiki needs a page titled "Jews run the world" or "Holocaust is hoax" or "Arabs are terrorists," or "Women are weak" or "Blacks are dumb." I think not. The page 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory describes a theory claiming a conspiracy involving Bush. Perhaps we could rename it 9/11 domestic conspiracy claims to make it less NPOV. I agree there are problems with all of the "conspiracy" page titles, and there is some movement to reconsider the naming, and where material fits best. Some of us are in the middle of that process. But to argue that "If even a single piece of counter evidence exists the word 'disproved' should definitely not be used," is to argue that there is no such thing as a preponderence of substantiated evidence. It has been disproven that 4,000 Jews failed to show up to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11. A neutral point of view is not an invitation to every theory, no matter how absurd. Please offer a constructive alternative. This is not a new issue, and you are not the first to object. It is easy to complain. It has been much harder for those of us who have been struggling for months to find a solution that builds a reasonable consensus. --Cberlet 23:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are making a straw man argument, the titles you seemingly sarcastically propose are obviously POV for different reasons. Wikipedia's own definition of "conspiracy theory" proves it is decidedly not neutral for use in a title "Colloquially, a conspiracy theory is any unconventional theory about current or historical events, with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration ". If there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence an article should just state something as a fact directly, instead of muddying the waters of mental clarity by putting "conspiracy theory" in the title. The disproven claim that 4,000 Jews failed to show up for work at the WTC on 9/11 is not a conspiracy theory, it is simply a disproven claim. If something is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia we should treat the subject neutrally regardless of whether you consider it to be absurd. In fact, using a title of "conspiracy theory" precisely conveys your belief that the subject matter is absurd (hint: that's super POV). zen master T 07:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If that's not a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is. The claim itself suggests that thousands of Jews were complicit with the attack (otherwise known as a conspiracy). It is false, unfounded, and outlandish in the extreme. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is let's not misuse language, if something is a provably false allegation an article should state the situation exactly like that. The definition of conspiracy theory has connotations that should forbid its use in an encyclopedia. zen master T 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

We should split parts of the various 9/11 articles into a new article titled something to the effect of Initial reactions to the 9/11 attacks that would cover all the inaccurate death toll estimates and initial reactions to the 9/11 tragedy that are obviously or provably incorrect (and the article would state directly with citations what exactly later turned out to be false [and include info on why the claim was errantly made initially perhaps also]). Though the article can and should also cover the initial reactions to the tragedy including true facts (the article will be of much greater scope than only the later proved false items).

All articles with "conspiracy theory" in the title should be renamed to just theory or theories, since that is what they are despite your assertion all of them are absurd, let the readers decide that for themselves.

The article with "Misinformation and rumors" in the title should be removed and content put in other articles unless it makes sense to keep some/all of the content given the above suggestions though it would need a better title which we will have to come up with later.

zen master T 07:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misinformation is a POV term in regards to conspiracy theories. The title should be changed or such theories should be moved elsewhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But aren't there four sets of material here (at least)? Initial reactions and rumors, claims later shown to be without a factual basis; claims that remain unresolved; and claims that clearly allege an extended conspiracy? I was one of the folks who collectively came up with the title *9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel so don't assume I am not sensitive to the NPOV issue, but some of these claims do argue a larger conspiracy (or different conspiracy) from that of the terrorists most people plotted and carried out the attacks. For example, claims that a fighter jet hit the Pentagon or that explosives brought down the towers imply a conspiracy. It is the proper word.

As for coming up with a title later, zen master, that's a problem. First we need to find a title under which to move stuff, then we have to move it, then we have to run around and relink/rename/redirect links on about about 20 pages. We also have to work with the desure of the 9/11 page editors that the initial rumors and misinformation be preserved for the historic record.

As for the lecture on logic, claims of conspiracy often are based on post hoc ergo propter hoc (because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other), and thus invalid on their face. The claim that one partial definition of the term "conspiracy theory" covers the entire range of definitions is another fallacy of logic: Composition. And it is not a straw man argument to say that Wikipedia should point out that claims that the Holocaust never happened are unproven and generally regarded as specious and often linked to bigotry. See Holocaust denial. --Cberlet 15:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My actual suggestions were to rename all the other "conspiracy theory" 9/11 articles to just "theory", create a new article about the initial reactions, and then get rid of this article. What do you think specifically about each of those three suggestions? By your own admission you believe "conspiracy theory" means the theories of the absurd, that is POV. Wikipedia should state directly that Holocaust denial claims are unproven and generally regarded as very dubious, but the title of such an article should not state that. The key is that encyclopedias should report facts neutrally and choose unambiguous words, a word like "conspiracy theory" which has "connotations" that the subject is "unworthy of serious consideration" violates all of those rules. If a subject is worthy of an article on wikipedia, even if it is an untrue rumor, it should be written in a way that makes it worthy of serious consideration if only to then effectively debunk it using true facts and citations whenever possible. Users should consider subjects logically, and be in a position to agree with a statement like "this subject X is generally regarded as dubious", rather than just being tricked into believing that without thinking about it, even if it is true. zen master T 18:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I write, not what you assume I write. I am agreeing that there is a problem with the titles. However when people promoting a theory about 9/11 are themselves claiming a conspiracy, then it is not POV to put "9/11 conspiracy claims" in the title. "Conspiracy claims" is already a compromise language. I am asking for specific suggestions, not further venting of spleen about your attitudes or mine. I do not believe all theories about conspiracies are "theories of the absurd." If you read what I wrote above that should be clear. Constructive specific suggestions will be useful. Further complaining about what you falsely think are my views is not constructive. Put your suggestions for SPECIFIC titles for the variety of pages you see as needed below. Then we can all discuss them. Please keep in mind that there are editors with far more skepticism about "conspiracy theories" than me. You might take the time to go back and read some of the talk pages on the various "conspiracy" pages. Everything you are saying has been said before. Repeatedly. We seek a collective solution here. --Cberlet 19:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" means something very different than "conspiracy theory". If you do not think all conspiracy theories are absurd why are you favor of an article's title that conveys everything inside the article is unworthy of being taken seriously? To look at the issue from the opposite perspective, an article's title should not accept as a fact that allegations by some people that claim something is a conspiracy theory is really a conspiracy theory. So from multiple ways of looking at the situation "conspiracy theory" violates NPOV policy. The titles for these articles should be simply "theories", inside the article we should state exactly who is alleging this and that as far as actually conspiring goes and how that contradicts the official position etc. To repeat my proposals, "conspiracy theory" becomes "theory", a new article on reactions is created, and this article is removed and relevant content placed elsewhere. What do you think about that? zen master T 21:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If this conversation is part of a Dadaist performance piece, please let me know so I can put it in context. Neither the word "conspiracy" nor the word "theory" appear in this page's current title. What would you call this page? Please stop lecturing everyone on your interpretation of NPOV. Please put a suggested Title for this page between double brackets. Then explain what criteria you would use for keeping or moving each section on the current page. --Cberlet 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did that already but here goes again, this specific article is removed as it is nothing but "misinformation and rumor". The following suggestions (which includes some new ones) can be tweaked:

Initial reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks
Allegations of 9/11 domestic conspiracy
Allegations of 9/11 cover up
Criticisms of the 9/11 commission
9/11 controversy <-- this could be main article
9/11 theories
Disputed evidence of the September 11, 2001 attacks or "List of evidence..."
Allegations of Israel involvement in 9/11
Allegations of Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11
Allegations of stock fraud relating to 9/11
Allegations of war profiteering after the 9/11 attacks
Allegations of Anthrax attacks domestic conspiracy
etc zen master T 00:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The folks who maintain the 9/11 collection have indicated a desire to keep a page devoted to rumors and misinformation that have been shown to be false as part of the historic record. You cannot simply dismiss this. Forgive me, but I cannot find the previous list of suggested titles you refer to. Can you please point me to it? Thanks.--Cberlet 01:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the three bullet points above that begin this sub section. I agree "rumors" and "misinformation" should be preserved, but since this is Wikipedia it must be preserved in NPOV fashion. zen master T 02:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, what do you think of these titles? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am delighted to finally see actual titles to discuss. I would prefer to see most of them start with "9/11" to allow for an easier search result for users. The word "claims" is a shorter word than "Allegations." For example:

9/11 claims of domestic conspiracy

I think there are far too many pages. This tends to promote claims of conspiracy when the major consensus is that some or most of these claims remain unsubstantiated. NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to all claims.

We also have to knit these together with other existing pages that already have text on some of these topics.

I really do not understand why the 4,000 Jews story is not properly in an article with title words that include "rumors" or "misinformation." For example:

9/11 early rumors and misinformation.

The title Allegations of Israel involvement in 9/11 is factually flawed. These claims included (in various posts) Israel, Zionists, Mossad, and Jews (alone and in combination). I prefer the current title.

This is a complicated process being suggested. Here are some of the pages that would need to be edited with material moved around or at least relinked:

Conspiracy theories (a collection) Collection of conspiracy theories with short discussion
List of alleged conspiracy theories Another list
Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks
9/11 conspiracy theories
9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel
9/11 domestic conspiracy theory

Also:

Also Catagories:

Category:9/11 September 11, 2001 attacks

And finally we would need to ask that the link on the main 9/11 page be changed.

Here is my suggestion. The first two pages would be linked to the main 9/11 table of contents:

9/11 early rumors and misinformation
9/11 controversies With the following briefly discussed and linked

9/11 criticism of official report (including claims of cover-up)
9/11 conspiracy claims (including stock fraud, oil gambit)
9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel
9/11 domestic conspiracy claims (anthrax attacks and war profiteering)

The issues of Saudi involvement and prior knowledge belong on the main 9/11 page. Actual war profiteering belongs elsewhere (I don't dispute it is happening) except for claims that 9/11 was planned to start a war (I have seen this claim).--Cberlet 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allegations sounds better than claims. "early rumors and misinformation" is more POV than "conspiracy theory" (though less subtle). I think there should be a separate article on conspiracy claims having to do with the Anthrax attacks (which makes sense as the Anthrax attacks did not happen on 9/11). Since there is at least some circumstantial evidence for a lot of the claims the title should not connote that the article is unworthy of serious consideration. Why did you mention the Anti-semitism article? On a logical and factual level what does Anti-semitism that have to do with neutrally presented 9/11 conspiracy allegations? Are you subtly arguing or hinting at that anyone that supports 9/11 conspiracy allegations is an anti-semite? That won't work. I think the title 9/11 allegations of Israel involvement is the most neutral. Though, for what reason are you arguing (logically?) that allegations of Saudi Arabian involvement should be put in the main 9/11 article but not allegations of other countries' involvement? That is not neutral. zen master T 18:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel is the most neutral because the claims involve Jews or Israel, and because they are claims of conspiracies. It is a dryly factual description, nothing more. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually disagree. The claims of Jews conspiring are about conspiring for the benefit of the country of Israel. It wouldn't be neutral to have a title like 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding the U.S. government and christianity. Doing so combines religion into the mix needlessly which has the (intentional?) effect of making it impossible to appear neutral. To sweep an entire religion up in allegations of conspiracy is heading towards anti-semetism (which would connote that the article is unworthy of being taken seriously for an entirely different reason). Also, "allegations" is better than "claims". Perhaps we should start with one main appropriately titled 9/11 controversy article that covers everything and then break sections off of that into separate articles if they grow too large? There is a lot of uncontroversial items in the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" articles that can be removed or moved to the initial reactions article. Right now the cart is before the horse title wise and our first goal should be to fix it. zen master T 05:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The claims are not all about Jews conspiring, nor are they all about people conspiring for the benefit of Israel; for example, the claim that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work is not a conspiracy for the benefit of Israel. Second, it is the conspiracy theorists who combine religion into the mix needlessly, since their claims mention "Jews"; one cannot ignore this fact. Third, "claims" is shorter, and more neutral as well, since an "allegation" is actually a claim without proof. Are you now proposing re-combining all this material, then breaking it out again? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who allegedly told "Jews" not to show up for work, agents of Israel? How would they know? One allegation is that the Mossad and/or a U.S. governmental agency knew of the 9/11 plot but let it happen for some reason. If all conspiracy allegations regarding 9/11 were completely about the specific things you mention (Jews and Israel) then you would have a point, but as I see it the claims against Jews are a small piece of the various and in many cases mutually exclusive allegations of 9/11 conspiracy involving numerous countries. Which is why the title of any article should be even more neutral because of the broader scope (even within a country specific conspiracy article religion should not be in the title). What conspiracy theorists are claiming does not concern me as far as creating an accurate, neutral titles goes (you seem to be arguing both sides of the equation to get your title accepted?). Titling an article with "conspiracy theory" accepts the conspiracy theorist's claim that it is actually a theory which is another reason why we shouldn't title article's that way. Allegations is still the prefered word, "claims" connotes randomness or money seeking on the part of the people making the allegations. Also note, nothing regarding 9/11 has been "proved" in a court of law that I know of. zen master T 22:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the comments by zen master are making less and less sense to me. We are trying to find a practical solution to a controversial issue over titles. I don't see an attempt to compromise here. I stand by my suggested page titles as a reasonable compromise. Otherwise we need to open up this discussion for comments from the larger Wiki editing community. --Cberlet 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality trumps your allegation of practicality. Are we all agreed "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" is wrong, at least? I agree we should bring more people into this discussion, how do you propose we do that? zen master T 23:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've said all along, "conspiracy theory" is a factual and neutral description. As for bringing people into, I've started the process at WP:RfC. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, conspiracy theory is not neutral. It is factually correct to call the generally accepted account of 9/11 a conspiracy theory - insofar as it postulates a conspiracy - but we do not, precisely because of the implications this term has. That said, when dealing with obviously false claims I find it difficult to care too much about their getting NPOV titles. I'd say this particular page could reasonably be dealt with simply by moving it from "Misinformation and rumours" to "Rumours" or "Notable rumours". - Mustafaa 01:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not "factually correct to call the generally accepted account of 9/11 a conspiracy theory" because a conspiracy theory "is a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was going by the obvious definition - a theory postulating conspiracies - but that definition brings the POV into sharp relief.. - Mustafaa 10:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't "rumors" have the same problem as "conspiracy theory", albeit to a less subtle and less problematic degree? A rumor is basically an uncited allegation, if an allegation is validly cited then why don't we just call it that? "Rumors" in the strict sense have no place on wikipedia in my opinion -- "notable rumors" are effectively allegations for which finding citations should be easy, so that is ok as long as we title the article appropriately. zen master T 02:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is always fun to discuss the ideas of postmodernism, but at the end of the shift, editors of encyclopedias have to make value judgements about the quality of information. You say, zen master , that "rumors" have no place here. The folks editing the 9/11 collection have specifically asked that the early rumors and misinformation be archived for pubic access. A rumor is NOT an uncited allegation. I can find cites arguing that lizard aliens secretly are trying to take over planet earth (see David Icke). In a current vote, Wikipedians are overwhelmingly rejecting a page proposing a variety of 9/11 conspiracy claims. You have a right to your ideas, but most Wikipedians are going to be unsympathetic to your views. I have proposed a compromise. I think it is reasonable. --Cberlet 19:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for that sensible dash of cold water. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think if we get enough eye balls on this controversy looking at the core of the issue most would agree "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumors" should not be allowed on wikipedia. Do tell where the vote you mention is taking place? It's not "factually correct" to use a phrase like "conspiracy theory" that has an additional definition where it connotes that the subject is "unworthy of being taken seriously", if it's worthy of wikipedia inclusion then it's worthy of being taken seriously (which is the essence of what an encylopedia is). You are seemingly choosing ambigious phrases like "conspiracy theory" with a very specific POV in mind and you consistently avoid any discussion about the implications of that alternative definition, once again, very suspicious. zen master T 21:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious? Why not create a page Allegations about Chip Berlet? Because there is already a page on me, Chip Berlet where Wiki editors have attempted to balance the majority view of reality with a handful of critical allegations by relatively non-mainstream sources. Your idea of what NPOV means is idiosyncratic at best. Go back and read the guidelines pages. Marginal and alternative PUBLISHED views are to be given some mention, but the generally agreed upon reality found in major PUBLISHED books, magazines, and newspapers is to be favored. Encyclopedias are not dumps, they are buffets. We are going in circles. I have proposed a compromise. I think it is reasonable. --Cberlet 22:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Family members of 9/11 victims are non-mainstream? Various articles in legitimate sources critical of the 9/11 commission report, some even from members of that very commission and former congress members? Blackcats, others, and I will create validly cited, neutrally titled 9/11 criticism articles, you are welcome to offer criticism on these new articles' talk pages, or help out. I agree that some of the current citations used in the "conspiracy theory" or "misinformation and rumor" articles are dubious, but that doesn't mean legitimate sources exist. It almost seems like the most dubious sources were chosen for the 9/11 "conspiracy" articles on purpose, for some reason... zen master T 22:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

zen master , we also are discussing creating two new pages:

9/11 controversies

9/11 criticism of official report

...into which material that is appropriate can be moved and added. At this point you are being obstructionist rather than engaging in an attempt at collective discussion. And you are beginning to sound paranoid. There is no conspiracy to edit here, only people with many different perspectives trying to work as a team. --Cberlet 03:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How exactly am I being obstructionist? I have taken no action in the articles themselves in support of my belief that "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" in a title is rife with POV except for putting the NPOV header inside just this article and discussing the issue on multiple talk pages. The articles are overwhelmingly POV excluding the title problem, would you agree? If what you mean by "obstructionist" is that you have yet to convince me (are you trying?) that the phrases are ok then I certainly agree. Also note you just responded to a post I made over 3 days ago, so your usage of the word "obstructionist" is woefully inaccurate at best.

The compromise suggestions are good but the second one should be more specific like "Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report", the title should specify precisely what criticisms are being summarized in the article like wikipedia seemingly does for all other "criticisms" articles. All I am saying is that the 9/11 articles should be no different than other "controversial" articles on wikipedia. As the 9/11 articles exist currently, the multitude of subtle and not so subtle POV problems is actually astounding (after you think about it for a while), though I decided initially to work hard for consensus on fixing the issues since they are so fundamental and numerous. Is there a 9/11 discussion taking place on a different talk page? zen master T 05:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most people disagree with your claims. Can you focus on that? You can't just stamp your foot and get your way on Wikipedia. How about 9/11 criticism of commission report?--Cberlet 04:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed I am the one working towards consensus, not stomping my foot. ;-) I think my suggestions most closely follow wikipedia policy, and no one has really tried to convince me that I am wrong. I think forcing the "9/11" first in an article's title is an unnecessary requirement as all other articles on wikipedia actually have titles similar to what I've suggested, why are the 9/11 articles seemingly so out of whack? I may file another RFC (someone else already filed one) but those don't seem to generate much traffic these days. Blackcats and I may create separate neutrally titled, NPOV 9/11 articles to end the fruitless discussion here. I did some investigation and it seems to be actual wikipedia policy to have a neutral, free flowing title that doesn't force the subject into the first word, numerous examples: Common criticisms of Microsoft, Criticisms of marketing, Criticisms of War on Terrorism, Criticisms of Pentecostal and Charismatic Belief, Criticisms of electoralism, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wal-Mart zen master T 06:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am on the road, and have limited access to a computer. The 9/11 articles were created over time by numerous people. There are multiple discussions taking place. Take the time to visit all the involved pages listed above. It is a nightmare to try to figure out a way to work out a compromise. Forgive me, but I do not find your style of dialog nor your impatience to be helpful. This discussion is not fruitless. --Cberlet 03:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Likewise I'd prefer to do without your personal attacks and your apparent refusal to take my criticisms seriously. Please refute my claim that the 9/11 articles are titled outside the norm for wikipedia? Perhaps we should create one central place or choose one talk page where everyone can discuss everything and work towards consensus on the 9/11 articles? The status quo is broken, it needs fixing. zen master T 04:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is "broken", and there is no need for haste. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the new page was Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report would the other page titles be OK?--Cberlet 14:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That title is perfect, but what do you mean when you say "would the other page titles be OK"? Generally, I would say that the appropriateness of one title should have no bearing on the appropriateness of other titles. zen master T 20:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pay some attention please. We all are busy. The other conspiracy claim page titles which I have now posted twice on this page since you seem to forget (or chose not to bother) to scroll up and read the discussion on this page! We need to come up with a solution for numerous pages so as to not waste many people's time. Please cooperate in a group process. I have asked you repeatedly to see the larger issues and the other pages involved. --Cberlet 23:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You intentionally mischaracterize. I see the larger issues. I see that objectively "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" are very POV, in a title especially. I see those that defend the status quo do not actually debate about anything (circular logic doesn't count). Being "busy" is hardly an excuse to perpetuate an error. Do you ever just answer a question or respond to someone's points directly? Since "conspiracy theory" connotes something that is unworthy of being taken seriously why should there even be a wikipedia article on this subject (using your logic)? Every wikipedia article should be taken seriously by being presented neutrally, if only then so the reader actually thinks about the issue and agrees the facts agree with the assesment that the allegations have been successfully debunked (rather than being "debunked" because of a suggestive title). zen master T 00:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to either agree with the suggested titles or offer alternatives for all of them.--Cberlet 01:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you miss the long list of red linked suggestions I've made in this thread above? What is wrong with any of them specifically? What suggestions are on the table for merging "misinformation and rumor" and the "conspiracy theory" articles to NPOV titled articles? zen master T 04:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's move on

It is quite clear at this point that zen master is not interested in seeking any type of compromise or constructive solution. The same demands posted over and over are not a collective editing process. I suggest that those of us who were involved in the plan for attempting to rearrange the conspiracy claim pages simply move ahead.--Cberlet 12:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to debate or work towards consensus. "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" are provably too POV for use in a title. If someone wrote either of those phrases inside an article there'd be all sorts of controversy and editing to clean up such usage. zen master T 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. This article is a mess, and I agree with you insofar that it's absurd to make wikipedia deny that conspiracy theories exist. Incidentally, Zen might be interested to know that Heaven's Gate (cult) is not at Heaven's Gate (religious movement).

At some point—when agreement is nearly universal—it no longer makes sense to say only that "some claim object fall downwards" or that "most find insufficient evidence to suggest 4000 Jews didn't go to the WTC on 9/11." We should call these things what they are. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically Heaven's Gate (cult) could be a misuse of language in a title but much less egregious than "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" because arguably the members of the "religious movement" would be ok with having been labeled as a cult. "cult" still tells the reader to take the subject of the article seriously and was likely only created to disambig from separate usages of "Heaven's Gate". Someone can not make a statement in an article on wikipedia that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11 without citations. Let's state facts as facts directly, for rough example: "The allegation that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9/11 is impossible because far fewer Jews worked in the affected buildings and there is no evidence of a warning". Any such allegation should additionally be caveated with the number of Jews that were actually killed in the 9/11 attacks. zen master T 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just as Heaven's Gate needs to be distinguished, so do these theories. The refuted claims are different from other theories in that it is as demonstrably conspiracy theories as they are false—more so, in fact ("conspiracy theory" allows for the possibility that it is true). One can theorize about Jewish culture, Isreal, and 9/11, for example, but conspiracy theories are what these articles fall under. These are not theories about how 9/11 affected Jewish/Israeli relations, and I think it's clear that such material would not belong in the same article as conspiracy theories. Incidentally, as a member of an ocassionally labelled cult, I've never met anyone in my life who would accept that label. I have, however, met self-described conspiracy theorists. Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that "conspiracy theory" connotes that the article itself is unworthy of being taken seriously, which is the anti-thesis of an encylopedia. It would be like having an encylopedia article on apples vs organes and using a title "oranges better than apples". An encylopedia shouuld not have articles on "conspiracy theories" without taking seriously the subject and allegations, which will allow the readers to decide for themselves that the allegations are without merit. Like "conspiracy theory", "cult" is a judgement call but its problematic usage is lessened by it being inside parenthesis. "Cult" in that case only exists to disambig, whereas usage of "conspiracy theory" seems to be pushing a POV for the overall subject, especially considering there are more neutral and separately better sounding titles than "conspiracy theory" or "misinformation and rumor" available. I've been involved with a few controversial articles on wikipedia, in my opinion, the 9/11 controversy articles fall far outside the neutral norm title wise, even for a "controversial" article. zen master T 00:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Most of your complaints above concerned percieved POV usage of terms and titles in this article. Please explain the inaccuracies you find in this article, Zen-master. Cool Hand Luke 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The POV adds up to being factually incorrect (commingling disparate items) and is borderline uncleanupable. Initial errant over estimates for the number of victims killed (and victims by nationality) is hardly "misinformation" or "rumor". "Rumors of passing UFO"? come on. Flight 93 passengers revolting claims also do not belong in this article. We need to separate things which are really being claimed from things which are provably false. Claims "Zacarias Moussaoui" was the 20th hijacker is hardly "misinformation" or "rumor" for opposite reasons. Parrallel War Games is a true fact that happened on 9/11 (having a section titled "claims which turned out to be true" inside an article titled "misinformation and rumor" doesn't make sense). zen master T 19:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So you believe these things are outside of the article's scope and POV? I agree that this is a POV issue, but we should not give the erroneous impression that the article is massively incorrect. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Perhaps we should just insert a disclaimer stating that rumors can be true. Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The errant claims about the number of people killed according to nationality are significant because they're the basis for some conspiracy theories (e.g. that no Israelis were killed because the whole attack was an Israeli plot, etc.) and it's useful to record those claims. This article is far from perfect, I agree. But I don't agree with some of your criticisms.

The Claims Which Turned Out To Be True section is also useful here because these claims might be thought by some people to be false. Similarly, Snopes has articles on true rumors, although it usually concerns itself with debunking false claims. Mr. Billion 20:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The errant initial over estimates themselves are absolutely not misinformation or rumor. Stuff that is "true" does not belong in a misinformation and rumor titled article (even more fundamentally such an article does not belong on wikipedia, all items should be merged elsewhere). zen master T 21:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Zen master is now unilaterally renaming pages rather than following through on the discussion on this page. See: this renamed page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_controversy) This is thoroughly outrageous.--Cberlet 03:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I've reverted his unilateral actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

9/11 controvery was the suggestion to be the main article (not my suggestion). So you disagree the new title(s) are better? If so, on what logical basis do you disagree? I didn't rename this misinformation and rumor article because I consider it borderline uncleanupable. zen master T 03:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Iraq sections

Here's one problem: The connection between Saddam and 9/11 is listed both under claims proven to be false and claims that are still unresolved/controversial. We can't have it both ways. Is it still controversial enough to be listed under Unresolved? Or did the 9/11 commission settle it well enough? Even Cheney claimed last October that he had never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11 (although the preceding September he "suggested" that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years now, but most especially on 9/11." Seems pretty obvious he's suggesting a connection there.) So is there really a debate over Iraq's involvement any more? Not that I know of. I'm moving the "Unresolved" Iraq section to the section "shown to be false." Post here if you disagree. Mr. Billion 09:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That is correct; it should be under "false." You might add a link to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda which debunks more specific charges with regard to Iraq and 9/11.--csloat 20:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

There should not be "false/unresolved/true" sections

This article should be titled "Rumors about the September 11th,2001 attacks." There should not be true/false/unresolved categories, if a claim has been proven false it should be explained in that section. All rumors should have a neutral point of view at all times, and should present both sides of the argument while keeping neutral. Some people have written things like "so-and-so claimed this..on closer inspection it's actually this". Don't do that. Provide evidence for that side's argument, while balancing with the other. Thank you and please work hard at keeping this NPOV. Stancel 21:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Justification of inclusion of NESARA section

The editor who removed the NESARA section noted that he thought it was probably "intended as a joke". It was not. I can verify that there are many people who believe this very strongly, as absurd as it may seem. If there are other legitimate reasons for removing this setcion, let's hear them, but based on the comment that it was removed because it was intended as a joke, I have re-included it.

The "NESARA" claim that George Bush is actually a "reptilian humanoid alien" is clearly a crackpot conspiracy theory, and if it has any place in Wikipedia articles about the September 11 hijackings, it would be in 9/11 conspiracy theories. As a rumor, this meme would be unable to survive in groups of people outside of a certain limited and manic frame of mind. I'm moving it to the conspiracy theories page. Mr. Billion 21:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since this article may soon be merged with several others, I'll leave it as it is. Here is the "alien" claim: They further believe that Bush is a reptilian alien and a member of the illuminati. This part is relevant to the conspiracy theory, which is why the whole thing is balderdash. Mr. Billion 21:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Rumors_about_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks"