Jump to content

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

This has just been added to the last sentence of the lead:

However, more than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building collapses.

References:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns
http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Now if you check the list, many of those who have signed are not architects or engineers. Many are Electrical Engineers, simply have a bachelor's degree in engineering, are software engineers and so forth. I have no idea what the actual amount of experts really are if you remove all of the people with degrees in areas that are only tangentially related. Have such an analysis been done? I believe it might be undue weight to include them as they appear to represent a minority and I don't think they publish their views in peer reviewed engineering journals. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got two reliable sources citing the 1000 figure (The Washington Times and the Macedonian International News Agency). Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly isn't fit for the lede, and even if you assume all are really engineers, they still represent a tiny minority of the engineering community not worth mentioning. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"However": WP:Undue Weight, and [1], [2], [3]. SK (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This IS an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, so how can it be undue weight to counter an assertion that implies ALL experts support the mainstream account? Here's another article: http://archinect.com/news/article/11045427/riba-comes-under-fire-for-hosting-bonkers-9-11-talk Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the insertion of "most of the" actually points to a nice approach for resolving a previous dispute, but the insertion about AE911 gives undue weight to the conspiracy theories and to that organization. As I recall there was an instance where some notable group or individual demonstrated how their petition was easily gamed. Maybe someone can track down the source, but I think there was some report about how their method for verifying someone's credentials was incredibly subpar with AE911 supposedly changing their methods in response. For a while I have been wanting to find it so it could be put in the AE911 article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Another news article: http://www.cm-life.com/2011/04/24/new-student-group-questions-911-attacks/ It's not undue weight to mention news reports about this petition - it counters assertions experts almost unanimously support the government account.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, there's the magic phrase. For full disclosure, do you support the 9/11 Truth movement? Is it the goal of you're editing here to - as you say - "counter the government account"? Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean my personal opinion? I personally find it hard to understand why the government would scrap all the evidence without conducting an investigation. And it also seemed odd that you had FBI agents who were telling headquarters that they suspected a plot was underway to fly jets into buildings but they weren't allowed to pursue their leads by their bosses: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/nation/na-moussa21 But I'm not a member of any 9/11 truth groups. What about you - do you believe the government account? Does that disqualify you from editing this article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Reminder: WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Reminder: that cuts both ways! Deleting relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material from the article seems more suspicious than including it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia Online article a reprint of a press release? It reads like one and I've seen it reprinted by other sources. In that case, it doesn't count as a reliable source since it would be actually written by the A&E for 9/11 Truth. I'm also questioning the veracity of the 1,000 figure. They seem to include anyone with the word "engineer" in their title, or anyone with even a bachelor's degree in anything relating to engineering. This means that many don't actually count as "experts" who are relevant to this discussion. Which means that the actual number of real experts on the list is in question. I can search for other reliable sources that question the veracity of their expertise. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This story was even featured in "Project Censored" for 2011. It's a group of journalists and journalism professors who feature the top under-reported stories of each year. See the third paragraph: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-increased-tensions-with-unresolved-911-issues/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Project Censorced is not a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh really? Check out Project Censored "Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." Walter Cronkite Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Walter said "listen to", not "believe". We're already considering AE911T in this article. "Damage to Saturn"???
  2. Our article notes that their coverage of 911 has led to resignations of judges; even if Project Censored were a reliable source, that would have to be noted.
All of this means that mention of AE911T is too nuanced to be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The place in the lead where Ghostofnemo is trying to insert that is talking about the civil engineering community. The AE911truth petition has few signers from that community. To put that up in juxtaposition with the ASCE is very clearly undue weight. Most of the signers are architects, and even among the engineers most are not civil or structural engineers who could actually claim some expertise on this topic. Mystylplx (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
We now have four or five news stories or stories by media groups pointing out this petition. That leads me to believe that, based on the reliable sources, this is notable. If it remains deleted, you have the untrue assertion that the government account is unchallenged by construction professionals. Furthermore, this line is being excluded based on original research (see WP:NOR) of editors who are "debunking" news reports. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
How about we say "the vast majority of" before "the civil engineering community" and leave out the mention of AE911?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What is your rationale for excluding it? It seems relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't go in the lead. Definitely not juxtaposed with the ASCE as if they are of anything like equal weight. Mystylplx (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to qualify it. Just saying "the civil engineering community" doesn't imply it's unanimous within that community, just that is the position of the community as a whole. Same way Wikipedia editors can come to consensus even if a few disagree. Adding the "vast majority" qualifier is not inaccurate, but it's unnecessary and bad writing. Mystylplx (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus" is not always agreed to be unanimous, but that is not the issue here. Many will read the current wording and presume that there are no dissenters or that there isn't anyone seriously challenging it. Talking about "bad writing" and it being "unnecessary" is a smoke screen for you really mean and I would appreciate it if people stop playing games like this. You don't want the wording in because you don't want there to be any impression of dissent at all. While that is perfectly respectable as your personal opinion, it is not appropriate for writing an article. Emphasizing that it is accepted to an almost universal degree is not going to persuade people to believe the theories, but leaving out that there are engineers who disagree might.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one playing games here. There isn't anyone seriously challenging it. You want the wording in because you want to create the impression that there are serious challenges. If you can show a credible source that takes AE911truth "seriously" then I will eat my hat. Until then the fact is that the civil engineering community rejects the conspiracy theories and there is no "serious" dissent. Mystylplx (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
When I say "serious" I mean the difference between "I have some doubts" and "you lie!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
What does that even mean? When I say 'seriouts' I mean serious. As in serious dissent taken seriously by the civil engineering community. As in what would happen if there was any real debate taking place within said community. Please stop the weird and tiresome semantic arguments. Mystylplx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you are the one who is arguing semantic here. We have notable dissenters to the official theory within the civil engineering community who disagree with pretty much the entire theory. It is appropriate to leave some sort of qualifier. "Vast majority" doesn't in any way indicate that there is any dissent being taken seriously. This use of a qualifier has been normal in many articles on fringe theories. All it does is indicate that not all of the civil engineering community agrees, which is correct and verifiable. Never mind that the cited source, a scientific journal, actually uses a qualifier for its acceptance within the civil engineering community. Are we really going to have to have another RfC over this issue as well?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Pointing out that some "outsiders" think someone planted explosives isn't a qualifier for its acceptance within the engineering community. Feel free to start yet another RfC if you like. I doubt you will have any more success with this one than with any others. Mystylplx (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) 2 Things: 1. we are talking about the lede. 2. we are talking about a paragraph contextualising conspiracy theories, pointing out that they have no standing within the scientific communities of the relevant fields. On both counts, being the lede, talking about the context, AE991T has no place. ad 1. because at that points we are not going into specifics, ad 2. because AE911T is an advocacy group, not a scientific organisation. It is that easy, really. SK (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem WP:NPOV to lead readers to believe that construction professionals unanimously support the government's findings (basically debunking the subject of the article in the lead-in), while at the same time concealing the existence of the Architects and Engineers petition, even when it has been mentioned by several news organizations. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn’t, until you look at how editors have presented them. I'm all for the mention of the AE911T petition, with the caveat that it also be mentioned that there are a lot of unqualified signatures on it. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 12:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the question is still up in the air as to how many relevant experts are even on it. It is much less than 1,000. I'd be more comfortable if there was some reliable source analysing the signatures so that we can provide better context. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You'll need to find a reliable source that debunks the petition. None of the news sources that have mentioned it have mentioned invalid signatures. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
To much for lede. Edkollin (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen any articles by reliable sources discussing the validity of the credentials of the petition signers. That is too bad, but we can not sit here and say this person looks right, this person looks wrong, 50% of the signers look invalid therefore the petition is not reliable. That is as original research as it gets. It is not our job here to do the work organizations deemed "reliable" by Wikipedia failed to do. Notability and variability guidelines have been met for the continuation of AE9/11 an their petitions mention in this article. Edkollin (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The Washington Times source is a column, not a news story, and therefore fails rs. Otherwise, the main issue is neutrality, if the story is only mentioned in a few publications, then it lacks the significance to mention. TFD (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It's still a reliable source. It appears in a real newspaper, the author is a regular columnist, it's professionally edited, and it has a publisher who is responsible for the content. It's not an editorial or a letter to the editor. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It is an editorial and therefore unlike an article is not reliable for facts, only the opinion of the writer. Typically newspapers publish columnists presenting differing viewpoints that are not necessarily the views of the editor. TFD (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Nemo, I am curious, if the wording in the lede "the civil engineering community accepts" were changed to "the civil engineering community generally accepts" would you drop your insistence on mentioning AE911 in the lede?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
'Generally' implies the existence of real, serious dissent - which there isn't. We don't say that historians 'generally' accept the Holocaust or that scientists 'generally' reject the Flat Earth theories, why is this any different? Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Questions that are essentially asking "why should we treat this different from Holocaust denial?" are not in any way a valuable contribution to the discussion. I shouldn't even have to tell you that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not on the same level as Holocaust denial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05's example was a poor choice, but we do not provide parity to fringe theories. No civil engineer or architect has published an academic paper challenging the cause of the buildings' collapse. TFD (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Parity is not what I am talking about. Allowing that there are some who disagree is different from giving their positions parity with the mainstream position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Citing the ASCE then noting that "some disagree" followed by citing AE911truth is giving AE911truth parity with the ASCE. And I'm not sure what "level" holocaust deniers are in comparison to 911 truthers, but they are really quite similar cases. Maybe a better comparison would be Obama birthers, and we don't say judges "generally" reject birthers claims either. Mystylplx (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.
...snip...
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.
— Zdeněk P. Bažant, What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)

The number of professionals that doubt the conclusions of Bažant or the NIST et al. is extremely small. That the opinons of this group are the topic of this article does not give them any actual validity. Please see WP:UNDUE. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Myst I was not suggesting the AE911 stuff be included in the lede. I was, in fact, asking if Nemo would be fine with keeping that out of the lede so long as we restore the wording "generally accepts" to the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to provide a reliable source that says there is doubt in the community. TFD (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
We already have a reliable source cited that uses the word "generally" to describe acceptance within the civil engineering community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually "generally"...

As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows... Bazant 2007

...is out of date...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition. Bazant 2008

Get it? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"Out of date" is not the appropriate way of looking at it. That this change in wording happened just a year later and in a paper where Greening, who appears to be at the forefront of the debunkers, became involved does not suggest to me this was anything more than an attempt to strengthen wording by people uninvolved in the first paper because softer wording was politically problematic. I sincerely doubt it actually went from "general acceptance" to "universal acceptance" within a year. What I see is that we have one source saying "generally" and another saying "universally" suggesting there is a conflicted view about its level of acceptance. However, given that we all know there are people who are structural engineers that object to the official theory we should favor the accurate description, not one that suggests those people do not exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
DA, let it go. You're arguments have all been debunked by pretty much everybody here and it is very clear they are not consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well DA, there are structural engineers and there are guys like Bažant. Luckily we can use WP:WEIGHT to sort things out. Let us know when you get your sources together. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UT
Not sure if I get what you are saying. His first paper says one thing, and it appears he was the primary authority behind it. The second paper you cited includes numerous other major people involved so it is unreasonable to suggest his paper has been "updated" by the second paper. What we know is that there are indeed structural engineers who disagree, something that can be easily verified, and there is a source specifically using the word "generally" to account for that small dissenting group. Rather than arguing "this guy says it is universal so we should ignore all verifiable information clearly demonstrating it is not universal and pretend like it is" you should allow that a small qualifier like "generally" is accurate and also better than edits like Nemo's that insert the stuff about AE911 into the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Even the one that uses the word "generally" goes on to state that only a few "outsiders" disagree. Mystylplx (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
By "outsiders" Bazant is refering to non-engineers and belief in CD. He accepts that some engineers believe in particular CTs that dont include CD. I can tell you through my own experience that using the word "Universally thought" in an academic paper would result in rejection by any legitimate peer review because it is such a patently false claim. This subject is blighted by people who cant separate CD from CTs in general or use CD to discredit legtimate concerns. Wayne (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think my original line is the best solution. The current article says "The civil engineering community accepts (the government explanation for the collapses)" and my additional line says, "However, more than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building collapses." And there are three newspaper articles that note this and a link to the petition web page, where readers can see the names of the signatories and their credentials. Seems pretty NPOV to me. Although I'm supposed to be assuming good faith, it almost seems as if there is an attempt to cover up the existence of this petition and the very existence of any dissent. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE mostly. Certainly not the lede. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
From WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." In this article, about a minority view point, the minority viewpoint is being dominated by the mainstream view, to the point that the minority view is not even being allowed to counter-balance the majority view in the lead on this point. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What you quoted from WP:UNDUE expresses it very nicely. Mystylplx (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This whole article is about the dissent--strange to claim anyone is covering it up. In the entire article there's just that one tiny paragraph giving the consensus account. I don't see why some feel such a need to water even that down. If anything it feels like there is an attempt to make it seem there is more (and more significant) dissent within the engineering and science communities than actually exists. Putting up AE911Truth in juxtaposition with theASCE is a powerful example of that. It implies that the two organizations are somehow comparable in terms of credibility. Like saying that scientists generally accept that the world is round, however 1000 members of the flat earth society dispute this claim. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, while the exact nature of Nemo's edit is problematic, we don't make any mention of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the various organizations that comprise it in the lede, even though this represents a significant aspect of the subject. Including this in the lede in some manner would seem to be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo, this article exists because conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have received a level of media coverage that satisfies the notability requirement for inclusion. It should not be inferred that this "notability" supplies the theories themselves with any actual credibility. Credibility is at the mercy of WP:RS et al. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the word "universally." A few fringe scientists don't believe in evolution, and it's not fair to say they don't exist. I get it, we all want to rub the Truthers' noses in the fact that they believe in a patently absurd conspiracy. But, let's not do that to the detriment of the article. We just need to phrase this to provide a clear understanding that the scientific community is in agreement, that the evidence clearly supports the prevailing view. We can indicate something about some fringe scientists signing on to a statement questioning the findings. But, we make it clear that virtually every claim made by the fringe has either been debunked or is based with virtually nothing to support it.JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid both "generally" and "universally". And no, we don't want to rub anybody's nose in anything but we do need to avoid documenting doubt where there is none. Unqualified claims by AE911Truth that the signatures of ~1000 architects and engineers on a petition indicate actual doubt are unfounded and not supported in the sources. The opinions of those that disagree with the wider and specialist community should be attributed to those individuals or organizations.—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this. I don't like "universally" because it is too absolute. That's not to say we should use terminology which implies doubt -- only that makes mention of the existence of fringe true believers.JoelWhy (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We have a documented source from a highly-qualified and reliable academic who thought nothing of using the word "generally" in a scientific journal. I think you should consider that more compelling than your own personal dislike of saying anything that you think will be too accommodating to conspiracy theorists. Perhaps by mentioning some of those truther organizations, such as AE911, immediately after that we can make it clear that when we say "generally accepts" we are talking about those groups being on the dissenting side.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem NPOV to not mention, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, that there exists a sizeable group of architects and engineers who DON'T buy the government's explanation. If you are going to state in the lead that the government's view is accepted by the civil engineering community, it's a huge omission to not also point out that a group of people with some expertise is asking for another look. It's not comparable to flat earth theories. Could you get 1000 astronomers and geologists to sign a petition saying the earth may actually be flat and that more research is needed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you could find 1000 people who have some ephemeral connection to astronomy or geology, a few of whom might actually be astronomers or geologists, to sign such a petition. Mystylplx (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We also have a credible source who thought nothing of using the word "universally", but no one is suggesting weuse that word in the article and only two people are suggesting we use the word "generally." Considering the fact that the case to use each word is exactly equal I'd say it shows who is trying to push a POV and who isn't. Mystylplx (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that "universally" would be demonstrably false, while "generally" is clearly accurate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The .pdf is being looked at in the wrong way. In 2008 it used the word "universal" to describe the structural engineering community's view. That was 2008 before the all or most of the AE911Truth got notoriety and many of their signatures. While they would probably use "universal" today we can't assume that. What should used are the specific refutations of the controlled demolition theorist claims. Edkollin (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"List of dissenting scientists" is a common tactic of pseudo-science promoters. AIDS Denialists for instance have [one]. Evolution deniers have another. The numbers on the list are inflated with a lot of people who are not relevant experts. Such lists does not mean that there is a real debate going on in the sciences. They represent an extreme minority position. For instance, Project Steve was created to highlight how much of a minority they really are in biology. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of people comparing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to groups like these. Why don't you compare them to JFK conspiracy theorists or OKC bombing conspiracy theories? All comments like these do is poison the wells in a content dispute. Calling the subject pseudo-science is also quite absurd. Save for the "no-planes" fringe there is no pseudoscience involved in 9/11 conspiracy theories. On occasion there is bad science, but that is not the same as pseudoscience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
They are perfectly legitimate comparisons to theories that are just as insane and absurd. 9/11 Truthers are no different in their faulty reasoning than AIDS Denialists, Holocaust deniers, or moon landing conspiracy theorists. Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Every single word of your post is WP:OR. Peer reviewed psychology studies have found that belief in 911 conspiracy theories is not psychological ("faulty reasoning") but is based on the "thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic" of the conspiracy theory, the premise being that if it sounds logical, it may be true even if there is insufficient evidence. These studies refute claims that most of the theories are "insane and absurd". Most conspiracy theories are separated from AIDS Denialists, Holocaust deniers and moon landing conspiracy theorists by the fact that these are clearly refuted by the evidence wheras many conspiracy theories cant be refuted due to a lack of evidence. Personal opinion has no place in arguing an edit. Please stick to the facts. Wayne (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
All I see is an uncivil attempt to poison people's minds against those who disagree with you in a content dispute. The article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't see why we can't find some way to accommodate Nemo's desire to see notable groups mentioned in the lede. We can even use it as a way of bringing the term "generally" back in a way that would satisfy concerns about it implying mainstream doubt. This is not an article about AIDS denialists or creationists and how we treat each subject should be determined by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
All of these conspiracy theories are similarly trying to poison the minds of people with paranoia and bad science, so comparisons are apt. If they have been made in reliable sources then there's no reason not to reflect them here.
I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline that would require other conspiracies theories to be a factor in how AE911Truth is handled in this article. Besides the comparisons between 9/11 CT's and their supporters compared with other theories and their supporters is dealt with at some length in the article. Edkollin (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
As for the 1,000 "engineers", this does not appear to to fulfill WP:WEIGHT, particularly:
This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news
Apart from being mentioned by two news sources shortly after it happened has it been referenced by future sources on a later date? Has it had persistent coverage in the news, or been covered in less transient works than the news or is this just been thrown out there to attract readership with titles like "Explosive News". Without any indication of ongoing significance to the subject its incredulous to believe it is a significant information or that it won't mislead readers unaware of the fraudulent authority many of these "engineers" have on the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Are any of the petition debunkers here engineers or architects? Have you checked out the list of signatories on the A&E website? Why do your personal opinions and original research trump the reliable news sources that have mentioned this petition? You have yet to produce one reliable source that this petition is a hoax or that some of the signatories claiming to be architects or engineers are frauds. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Another news story that mentions the petition, and also mentions other news organizations who are covering the story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/14/geraldo-much-open-minded-911-campaign/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Fox News video from 2010 that mentions the petition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pFPobKeSzKQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
A trivial mention by a Fox news host, and a blog criticizing that Fox news host mentioning it in one line as well. The news is transient and reports are commonly done on breaking stories without any kind of historical perspective, has someone recently brought this up, has there been any evidence of a lasting impact stated by a reliable source? Also, do you know what a fallacious appeal to authority is? It's me calling myself a culinary engineer because I made a triple-deck peanut butter & jelly sandwich for lunch and then responding to every layman who questions my authority on collapsing buildings "Well, are you an engineer?"AerobicFox (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any qualms with including the petition in this article. There clearly has been media coverage of their claims. But, it needs to clearly point out that this is a tiny fringe group. 1,500 architects and engineers? Engineers which include electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, computer engineers, and others with as much expertise in this arena as someone who majored in, say, French or Women's Studies? It should be included in the article if only to point out just how fringe this claim is within scientific circles.JoelWhy (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How fringe is AE911? How many engineers have publicly agreed with the official explanations? 100? 200? 500? I doubt it would more than that and suspect it may be only a few dozen. A few engineers have gone on record that they will never make their opinions public in case it negatively affected their careers and this is apparently widespread. There have been plenty of polls on who believes CT but has there ever been one for engineers? If not, why not? That some engineers have gone public in support of some CTs makes limited mention relevant. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen a poll asking astronomers whether they believe we really landed on the moon. I've never seen a poll of historians to see if they believe there really was an Atlantis. But, yes, clearly there is a conspiracy to keep the engineering community silenced!JoelWhy (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Sigh......because there is no comparison between the two cases so you are proposing a logical fallacy, which seems to be the only type of arguement you can can find to support your case. We have an abundance of evidence for the Moon landing, easily understood by the non academic, from start to finish. We have physical evidence, photographic evidence and even a man-made mirror on the Moon which will reflect a laser to a degree that is impossible to fake. For the 911 collapses we only have mathematics. NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse and they did not even investigate the collapse beyond the point of initiation. How many people can read Bezant's paper and say "oh wow, it's so obvious". I'm talking here of understanding the math not just agreeing with it because you are biased to the official theory. We even have the problem that NIST refuted Bazants original paper so he had to rewrite it...at least four times! Wayne (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, who has claimed there is a conspiracy to silence engineers? Wayne (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. "NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse"
    1. Their report clearly does not say this
  2. "biased to the official theory"
    1. Which group are you biased to, a bunch of random people calling themselves engineers from unrelated fields who have Googled 9/11 or:
  • "[NIST's] in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas ... over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation ... NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations ... Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media."

If you do not see a problem with weight, pitting a petition from a scant field of unrelated "experts" who have done no direct research vs. virtually every individual and organization with any authority on the subject involved who investigated this then you should reread WP:WEIGHT.AerobicFox (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. "Their report clearly does not say this"
    The NIST report above actually says that the most severe computor simulation didn't allow the buildings to collapse so they altered the data "beyond what the physical and photographic evidence supported until collapse occured". In writing a peer reviewed paper, engineers questioned NIST on this and NIST explained that while this is true they did not alter the data beyond "physical possibility." The engineers requested to know what data was altered but NIST declined.
  2. Which group are you biased to, a bunch of random people calling themselves engineers from unrelated fields who have Googled 9/11 or NIST's in-house expertise.
    I am biased to no one. I am simply not scared to give all sources a fair go based on weight and relevance, regardless of whether it contradicts what I myself believe. Just because something may be used to support CTs does not mean that the CTS are true. Wayne (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. "beyond what the physical and photographic evidence supported until collapse occured"
    • I believe the actual quote you are looking for is "simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports", but I can see how to an open enough mind that can be read as "NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse".
    1. "I am biased to no one. I am simply not scared to give all sources a fair go based on weight and relevance"
      • Everyone is biased, believing you have none makes you more susceptible to it. Dividing the sides into 1 group for an "official theory" and 1 group against is not giving all sources a fair go. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists like many others are only notable because they are vocal, not because their opinions are an alternatively valid way of looking at things, and to that extent we cover their vocality because it is notable and their opinions because it explains their vocality, but we do not care about arguing over the validity of their opinions because their validity is irrelevant apart from the fact that they are wrong and the driving force behind their actions. If they had valid points then we could argue over them in a detailed and nuanced way, but no reliable sources have bothered to write things to contradict them beyond what has already been presented, and if nobody reliably describes the importance of something they do then it isn't significant enough for this article.AerobicFox (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that reliable sources are supposed to decide if something is notable or not, not us humble editors. Reliable sources have mentioned this petition, including the Washington Times, Sydney Morning Herald and Fox News. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if this is clear, according to you "reliable sources ... decide if something is notable or not" and since "Reliable sources have mentioned this petition" you believe that those sources have determined the petition to be notable. Then does it follow that everything that is mentioned in sources is notable? No it does not. We do not create a mosaic of trivial mentions and shallow coverage to prove notability, we require a source explicitly stating the importance of something in order for it to be notable. So far none of these sources have stated any significance to this petition.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The petition exists, it has been mentioned by the given reliable sources (making it notable), and it is clearly relevant to the subject of the article. It is not random information plucked from a footnote, but is prominently mentioned by all the listed sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Existing does not make it notable, neither does mentions in reliable sources. Unless a source states something to the effect of "this is notable because" or gives some other indication of notability, or continues to be mentioned in sources then their is no indication that it should be given weight.AerobicFox (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Outside of analytic pieces most news stories do not say this is notable or something to that effect. The decision to print means they think it was newsworthy/notable etc. And of course we would not put in trivia like it was raining when they presented the petition. How often do reliable sources mention it if not analyse it is also important. I google news "9/11 truth" and "9/11 conspiracy" by date order pretty much every day. A lot of it is what you would expect reprints by fringe blogs of what appears in Prison Planet. I have not counted how often but what I see a decent amount of local media covering AE911 Truth events in their area and mentioning the petition. Edkollin (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The petition exists. We cannot say that a reliable source says that the signers are "architects and engineers" without evidence that they are not just quoting the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The reliable sources do not question the validity of the signer's credentials. The signer's credentials are publicly displayed on the group's website. If the news organizations were diligent, they would have checked this out prior to publication. It's called "fact checking". Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
"The decision to print means they think it was newsworthy/notable"
Newspapers print breaking stories all the time with the intent to be the first one to, or to grab reader's attention, without any notion of notability. Not everything a newspaper has written should be reprinted in Wikipedia, only that which a newspaper has indicated will have lasting importance should make its way here, so far neither of those sources do that.AerobicFox (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 truth movement is not "breaking news" so that argument doesn't pertain in this case. Long term follow up or continuing coverage of a subject by reliable sources has always been a marker for notability in the discussions I have seen. If we only printed what reliable sources say will have lasting impact we might have no 9/11 CT article or at most a stub.Edkollin (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"The 9/11 truth movement is not "breaking news""
This petition though was. One petition does not equal 9/11 truthers.AerobicFox (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that the petition is now metioned in the "Proponents" section, but it doesn't say what the petition is requesting (a new investigation) or the very important detail that the group claims more than 1,000 architects and engineers have signed the petition, which is mentioned in the media reports cited as references. This information should be added. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You might think it's important, but I don't for all the reasons already explained. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ghostofnemo. A few words more will give readers needed information regarding the petition. Jusdafax 20:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see any "needed information" that would warrant inclusion. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Able Danger

{{edit [1] semi-protected|answered=no}} Please change: Proponents of these theories claim there were inconsistencies in the official conclusions or evidence that was overlooked. To were overlooked

Please add to the information on hijacking. The perpetrators of the attack were very quickly identified mainly because they were paid off by the US government in the first place. Conspiracists say that the visual world and the world of nieve citizens is in deception, while the true reality is always hidden. CarleySmith29 (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening us clueless sheeple.JoelWhy (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Need a Reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's called Able Danger and here is one source: "Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added an Able Danger subsection to the Foreknowledge section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What you added was a mixture of fact, fiction, and misleading information. I made some corrections, but if someone else wants to clean it up, please do. Note that the information regarding Shaffer's book was removed because it was highly misleading (and contained some blatantly false information.) The underacted version of the book is widely available. An worst, this information evidences that Dept. of Defense was caught with their pants down, but there's nothing in the redacted information that implies 9/11 was an inside job or that the gov't let the attacks happen. I frankly would have no problem with deleting this entire section, as it really has zero to do with a conspiracy regarding the attacks -- rather, it is pointing out that the government failed to put the pieces together, so the only "conspiracy" was, perhaps, an attempt by the government to hide its incompetence.JoelWhy (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I did delete it because the section I saw in the article was unsourced. The source here does not show a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Reliable sources should be produced showing 9/11 CT's consider Able Danger part of a 9/11 CT or notable in that regard. Edkollin (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
POV/OR: While I have seen 9/11 truth sites discussing Able Danger I have not seen them making this link. 9/11 truthers seem to be putting this in as part of a laundry list to show the government is is "evil" enough to do what they are accused of. From what I have seen while the government is widely disposed as liars and cheats there is widespread disbelief the government would go so far as mass murder of its own citizens. Edkollin (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

First, the section was modified so that it differed from the reliable source it was based upon. Then it was completely deleted for being unsourced, despite the fact that a reliable source was supplied as a reference. What's going on here? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You should provide sources that link them to the conspiracy theories. They are not hard to find as I demonstrated. If you want to include something in this article make sure there are sources mentioning it in connection with the conspiracy theories. Granted, editors shouldn't be reverting stuff they undoubtedly know is connected to the conspiracy theories based solely on you not providing a source noting the connection, but that is the way things go in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If you feel this is necessary, you should add this material to the article. The entire section, along with all the supporting references, should not be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, I see now, it was deleted, then restored and moved. I can live with that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section on Able Danger because to the best of my knowledge, this is not a major element of 9/11 conspiracy theories (CTs). The first two cited sources,[4][5] aren't even about 9/11 CTs. The third source is essentially a primary source (apparently a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs (less than a sentence).[6] In fact, even the passing reference denies that this is related to CTs. The fourth source is being misused. It's actually about 9/11 CT movies [7] but it's not being used to discuss 9/11 CT movies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources were being used in a highly misleading way. The editors included statements suggesting a conspiracy, but conveniently left out the statements making it clear that the only conspiracy they are referring to involves a possible cover up of incompetence -- not foreknowledge or participation in the attacks. Yes, some Truthers have tried to point to Able Danger as evidence that '9/11 was an inside job,' so, if properly cited, it may be appropriate for the article. But, we don't then use the standard 9/11 Truther arguments in the article. Rather, we include the accusation and then the facts (and, as usual, the facts fail to support the claims made by the Truthers.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a continuing problem that the page relies on primary sources, synthesizing from them our own wiki-definition and analysis of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the early days this was understandable, but now there are good secondary sources on the topic. Those are what we should be summarizing here. Tom Harrison Talk 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The transcript does not "deny" a connection to conspiracy theories. In fact, Weldon plainly states that the Able Danger story was used to advance conspiracy theories. Also, the last source isn't being used inappropriately at all. If a conspiracist creating a film to promote a theory and getting national media coverage for it does not justify mentioning it in this article then I don't know what justifies including material in this article. Several major reliable sources also directly labeled Weldon's claim a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it might be more accurate to say that Weldon denies he's using it to advance CTs ("I have done none of this"), but it's still just a passing reference and still a primary source. And the first two sources have nothing to do with 9/11 CTs and the final one is being misused because we're not using it to discuss 9/11 CT films. In any case, you're missing the big picture: this is not a major element of 9/11 CTs and doesn't deserve its own section. I just checked Knight and there's not a single mention of Able Danger. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe it's fair to say that the 9/11 CTs that we are discussing on this page fall into two different categories (with some overlap). There are CTs that claim the U.S. allowed the attacks to happen; and there are CTs that claim the attacks were carried out as some form of false flag attack (e.g. 9/11 was an inside job; Israeli gov't was responsible for the attack and frames Al Quaeda, etc.)
There are other conspiracies related to the attacks, but I do not feel they are appropriate for this page. For example, did the Bush administration try to downplay its responsibility in failing to prevent the attack (i.e. incompetence)? Yes, that would involve a "conspiracy," but it hardly falls into the realm of "conspiracy theory" as the phrase is commonly used. I saw a report today indicating the FBI may have covered up evidence that would have embarrassed the Saudi Arabian gov't. Again, not a "conspiracy theory." Rather, it's the type of information that may belong on the actual 9/11 page, not the CT page, where we discuss theories which are rejected by official accounts, mainstream historians, etc.
So, for this particular issue, did the U.S. gov't possibly try to stem the flow of embarrassing information to hide its incompetence? I think you would find plenty of researchers who would agree there is evidence to support such a belief. And, it deserves discussion on the official page. Here, we're discussing fringe beliefs.JoelWhy (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with that perspective. This article is for discussing the conspiracy theories period. It is not a place for discussing conspiracy theories editors believe are worthy of ridicule. Failing to mention issues and theories on the basis that they lend legitimacy to conspiracy theories in general is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and makes the article less comprehensive. The stuff about Able Danger was not only labeled a conspiracy theory, but was widely noted as having fueled conspiracy theories. In addition we have major reliable sources discussing a movie based on the Able Danger program that explicitly cite the mention of Able Danger as promoting a conspiracy theory. The argument that this is not a "major element" of CTs is funny when many of you support having a section devoted to the no-planes theories based on a few truly trivial mentions that plainly mention it as not being a prominent theory. One might think there is a bias towards having this article portray a negative image of the conspiracy theories.
However, you do have a good point about the Able Danger issue not falling neatly in one category or another. While it does involve foreknowledge accusations, it also has elements of the cover-up allegations and others have used it to support a MIHOP theory. That also represents a problem with how we deal with Israel. The five dancing Israelis fit into the foreknowledge section, but also the foreign governments section. Perhaps we need to have a major rewrite of this article to have things grouped more appropriately.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on defeating another army of straw men.JoelWhy (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just checked Popular Mechanics and they don't cover this either.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
They don't mention the no-planes theories either. What happened is you moved the goalposts. At first the problem was that sources didn't link it to the conspiracy theories and now that this can be plainly demonstrated as linked to the conspiracy theories it's the argument that this is not a prominent claim. Yet, when it comes to the no-planes theory the latter argument doesn't hold up by any measure so why the double standard? Didn't you say in justifying the inclusion of the no-planes theory that the article should be comprehensive? Why does your opinion suddenly change when its a claim that makes the conspiracy theories look more sane?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
@Devil's Advocate: They haven't changed and there is no inconsistency. Cover-up allegations are in the article. The Cover-up section already gets seven paragraphs. The no planes section gets only one paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And no, you don't have multiple sources. You only have one and it's about 9/11 CT films, yet the section is not about 9/11 CT films. In any case, as you have been told dozens of times (or so it seems), this is a topic where we have thousands and thousands of sources. One (misused) source out of thousands and thousands doesn't impress much. See WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I do have multiple sources actually, but I shouldn't have to cite half a dozen pages when I provide a major national news organization giving in-depth coverage of an issue. Verifiability doesn't require that every single possible source be provided in the article, but only that such sources exist and can be used to verify the content. Saying it is "misused" is mistaken as well. The article is about certain films promoting conspiracy theories so it is valid to use that source to note a prominent conspiracy theory, because the national media coverage of the film makes it a prominent conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
So, your argument is that because this is briefly presented in a notable movie, that makes this particular CT notable? That's not a good argument here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
@Devil's Advocate: Well, I've been working on this article for a couple years now and and to the best of my knowledge, this is not a major component of 9/11 CTs. I was open-minded and I checked both Knight and Popular Mechanics and found that neither even mentioned this. If you're unwilling to provide your sources, there's not much I can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hand It was not that the film mentioned the conspiracy theory, it was named "Able Danger" and centered on the conspiracy theory about Able Danger. To AQFK, here is another source about the movie: [9]. Also, here are some sources showing the claim itself was labeled a conspiracy theory: [10] [11] [12] [13]. The last is a copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer article that is currently behind a pay wall and also notes that Able Danger was fueling conspiracy theories. As well, here is a major conspiracist source mentioning it: [14].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said earlier. If this is something the Truthers have latched onto, I have no qualms with including mention of it (assuming we have sources for such claims). However, unlike the highly misleading addition which was justifiably removed, such a mention would have to explain that the parties who are criticizing the gov't are NOT accusing the gov't of foreknowledge. This is something invented by the Truthers, mixing fact with fiction to support their fantasies. The people involved are accusing the gov't of trying to hide their incompetence, nothing more.JoelWhy (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should try to fix it then. Do I have to do everything?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I did fix it, and my changes were reverted by one of the Truther editors back to a work of fiction. Hardly surprising, as believing in the 9/11 CTs demonstrates a complete inability to distinguish fact from fiction...JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I just had a closer look at the fourth source. It's not about Able Danger CTs at all! It's actually about a fictional thriller film (not a documentary) named Able Danger apparently inspired by 9/11 CTs. Here's what the source actually says:


As best I can tell, there's not a single word about Able Danger CTs! Unbelievable! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I can hardly grasp this. In some twisted way known-to-be-imaginary fantasy is feeding let's-pretend-it's-real fantasy. It's as if someone made a movie about a plucky Wikipedia editor who uncovers a conspiracy to delete an article about a prominent Wikipedia inclusionist's topic ban, then The NYT reviewed the movie, and then that review was cited in a Wikipedia article about... well, imagination fails me.
The movie Able Danger is simply Conspiracy fiction. Nothing should be included here about Able Danger (2008 movie), unless a really good secondary source relates it in some significant way to real 911 conspiracy theories. But then that's true of everything here.
Some aspiring professor of new media needs to study the inter-relationships among conspiracy theory, conspiracist fiction, and Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Please at least try to read the sources more carefully. The Mother Jones article says the following:
I find it difficult to believe you would not notice the replete references to the movie being inspired by and seeking to promote conspiracy theories. That makes it relevant to the question of Able Danger and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, as you can see from the other sources provided above, mentions of Able Danger in connection with conspiracy theories were not unusual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
We did read your sources more carefully. Out of the four, three didn't address this content at all and the only one that did, was just a primary source and only contained a brief, passing mention of 9/11 Able Danger CTs. Do you have any explanation for huge gap between the sources and the actual content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
AQFK, the three quotes above clearly demonstrate that the Mother Jones article directly addresses Able Danger as something being used to advance claims of U.S. government involvement. The fictional work is meant to advocate for the conspiracy theories. Furthermore, I provided six sources a few comments back that also directly make that connection. The four sources you appear to be talking about are the ones from the actual edit, and only two of those sources were supplied by me, to address your initial argument that there was no link to the conspiracy theories. I am talking about the six source I provided a few comments back. However, if those are not enough how about these?: [15] [16] [17].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Your quotes make this sound like a propaganda film disguised as entertainment. Is that really what you want put forward in this article? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The 3 quotes above don't say a single word about Able Danger CTs. Not a single word. This is one of the most blantent misuse of sources I've ever seen. My "initial argument that there was no link to the conspiracy theories"? Huh? What? I said no such thing. Please strike through your false statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing false about my statement: [18]. There was no "blatant misuse of sources" by any measure. It is a film intended to advance conspiracy theories and compel people to believe the conspiracy theories that centers on the Able Danger program. Hand's remark is pretty accurate in that this is basically a pro-conspiracist propaganda film. It is disseminating ideas to convince people of conspiracy theories and those ideas focus on Able Danger being part of a conspiracy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's clear that several of the sources cited in support of this material don't say anything about the topic, and used in this context confuse real and fictional conspiracy theories. The Mother Jones reference might support a passing mention in Cover-up allegations, but the lack of much mention of Able Danger in contemporary books specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories argues against that. I recommend we close this and move on. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
See three sources I provided just above, and the six sources I provided before that. As far as lacking mention in books, once more, the no-planes theories get mentioned even less in reliable sources, in a far more trivial manner than this theory, yet we include mention of those theories here. This was a single small paragraph that added a mere 2 kilobytes to a 180 kilobyte article. It is not "undue weight" to have that small a mention in this article, especially when we have sources to establish it as having prominence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
@Devil's Advocate: There seems to be a pattern to your editing. You find some minutia, write a whole section about something nobody cares about, and then spend weeks/months arguing for why the minutia should have its own section. Why do you do this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Below, I am going to copy and paste my response to DA from a couple of weeks ago. I didn't have to change a single word, and yet it applies equally to this conversation as it has to most of the other discussions on this thread:
Ok, so this has quickly devolved into yet another pointless "debate". DA, your opinion has been heard and we disagree with your assessment. If someone else has a reasonable argument to be made for the change, we can address that. But, DA, it's time for you to drop the matter. If you don't drop the matter, I propose the rest of us should ignore further postings on this topic by DA. I'm not ready to ignore everything DA has to say (yet), but if he insists on perpetuating a pointless argument, I think it's best if we don't take the bait. NEXT TOPIC!JoelWhy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)JoelWhy (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not write the section, Nemo did. All I did was establish that it is a prominent issue mentioned by conspiracy theorists. Here are all the sources I have provided establishing that: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. Many of these sources go into far more detail than any of the sources on the no-planes theories so why are keeping that in the article, while keeping this out? This should be a discussion about how to include it, not whether to include it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The phase of the moon may fuel conspiracy theories. The phase of the moon is NOT a conspiracy theory though. Important distinction often lost on the moonbats. --DHeyward (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone said that x claim about the phase of the moon fueled conspiracy theories it would certainly make that claim worthy of inclusion in an article on conspiracy theories about the phase of the moon. Of course, in this case we also have cited instances of the claims being described as a conspiracy theory and undeniable conspiracy theories about the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the Able Danger section should be restored. It's discussed as evidence of a cover-up, and it is not necessary to determine exactly what is being covered up or why. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually. it's kind of important to link "cover up" to "9/11" and "conspiracy theories" to be included here. So far, that link is lacking. --DHeyward (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
See the eleven sources I provided above. The link is clearly established. It is completely worthy of inclusion, even in its own section. What we should be discussing is how to include it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried tweaking and reinserting the Able Danger section, but once again it was completely deleted, along with all the references, by AQFK. The reason given was "see WP:BRD. I suggest you see WP:BRD-NOT. Here is another article linking Able Danger to a cover-up, which also describes a pattern of either absolute incompetence or willful enabling: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/enabling-danger-part-one_b_5951.html?view=screen Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Here are two more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/08/23/140685/-Confirmed-Able-Danger-ID-of-Atta-before-Bushco-Shut-it-Down and http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mounting-evidence-that-Bus-by-Richard-Clark-101009-999.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Material about the program has been inserted into the hijackers section, where I think it fits best, with some additional information and better wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's been deleted again by someone who doesn't understand BRD or CONSENSUS (these are not tools for keeping relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material out of articles). Clearly there will be no mention allowed of Able Danger in this article (or the Reichstag fire comparisons, or the Architects & Engineers petition). Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghost, your addition was completely misleading. You are warping information and cherry picking evidence to paint this sinister picture which supports the 9/11 CT fantasies, while leaving out crucial pieces of information which undermine it. There's no Wiki conspiracy to keep out pertinent information, but simply rational editors keeping people like you from turning this into propaganda for the Truther. DA's addition was at least on the right track, and appears to be in good faith. However, I believe it still misses the mark, IMO, for the following reason.

Able Danger clearly does represent a conspiracy. It evidences government officials allegedly conspiring to minimize intelligence failures which may or may not have been able to prevent the attacks, mitigate the damages caused during the attack, increase preparedness, etc. The problem is that, as the article currently stands, we are discussing the fringe beliefs which are discussed within the CT communities. Conspiracy theorists do not point to Able Danger as evidence that the government should have connected the dots. Rather, they point to it as evidence that the government purposefully allowed the attacks to occur as part of some New World Order diabolical plan. As is typical, the Truthers ignore crucial pieces of evidence which poke gaping holes in their theory (see Ghost's recent edit).

So, if we are to include Able Danger, it should be in this context. It should briefly point out that the people involved in making the public accusations say this was a possible gov't intelligence failure, and that Truthers have taken the information they like from this to support the foreknowledge claims (and ignored the information which doesn't support this.) In other words, although it is a possible "conspiracy" that had gov't officials trying to brush aside its own negligence, this type of conspiracy is not appropriate for this article. Clinton allegedly warned Bush that Bin Laden was a threat. Bush arguably didn't focus on this enough prior to the attacks. The Bush administration was, perhaps, not entirely forthright in admitting that it had received warnings but did not do as much as it should have to prevent the attacks. It that a conspiracy? By definition, probably. But, it is not a "conspiracy theory" as people typically understand the phrase to mean. This isn't about the conspiracies I like vs. the conspiracies I don't like. Rather, it's the difference between legitimate issues of debate, which may be appropriate for the actual 9/11 article, and the fringe beliefs (which range from the foreknowledge and thermite claims to the no planes theories, and beyond.) We simply cannot include every possible gov't error leading up to the attacks in this page and label them a conspiracy theory. This article would be be the size of a novel. Pretend you, for the first time, see some kid wearing a '9/11 was an inside job' and you want to learn more about it. You come to this Wiki page to read about 9/11 conspiracy theories. We are not providing the readers with a service if we give them 45 pages of information which contains items which may technically constitute a "conspiracy" burring the type of information virtually everyone who visits this page is coming here to read.

To put this in context (and please excuse my editorializing,) did the Legacy INS attempt to minimize its role in failing to keep tabs on the terrorists whose legal status in this country had expired? Sure...hardly surprising, and it sure did pain the agency (which, because of 9/11, no longer exists) in a bad light. But, how much can you really blame the agency? Literally millions of other immigrants were (and still are) in the exact same situation. Or, how about the DoD agents who "identified" the terrorist? How many other people did they "identify"? 100? 1,000? 10,000? It's hard to know. So, when 9,999 of the people they've "identified" turn out to be harmless, but 1 turns out to be a mass murderer, the agency tries to hide this damning fact. Surely they can't go on Capitol Hill and use that as an excuse. Inexcusable, but hardly surprising. I am not trying to provide excuses, simply pointing out that the use of this information can easily be perverted to support wild conspiracy theories, while the far more mundane explanations are exponentially more plausible.

Sorry for droning on -- in closing, I haven't looked through all of the citations. Do we have citations which clearly show Truthers using Able Danger as evidence for the foreknowledge conspiracy? If so, I could see a brief edition to the article. But, I don't support adding anything/everything that might be labeled a conspriracy.JoelWhy (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the last edit I made to the article. I agree we shouldn't include anything that might be labeled a conspiracy theory, but this was a noteworthy story and merits more than a single sentence. Nemo needs to be more mindful of how he sources material, but much of what he is putting in does have prominence amongst conspiracy theorists. Honestly, there are far more interesting and compelling conspiracy theories that get no mention and rightfully so because there are few, if any, reliable sources to back up including them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I did see your last edit. That's primarily what I was responding to. Ghost's edit wasn't worth thoroughly addressing because it was so blatantly misleading.JoelWhy (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see that now. Sorry, it was just so large that I skimmed a bit and didn't notice that you mentioned my change specifically.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There was a citation to 9/11truth.org where Able Danger is discussed in-depth. It actually doesn't mention foreknowledge, instead claiming that the program might have been about setting the hijackers up as patsies. Also, the claim from Weldon itself was actually labeled a conspiracy theory in several major outlets and other sources say it was fueling conspiracy theories. There was another that I think I provided here on the talk page where the article says the program fueled conspiracy theories about a cover-up by the Commission.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the reliable sources, there is some evidence that the Able Danger program is being covered up. You are assuming it is because the government wants to cover up its intelligence failure, but there is no proof that this is THE actual explanation. It is also possible, and this is what the conspiracy theorists are proposing, that government knew that these people, who they had linked to al Queda, were up to no good, but did nothing to stop them. Remember, the government already knew al Queda was responsible for the first attempt to bring down one of the towers with a van filled with explosives. I don't see how your personal opinions about why it is being covered up can somehow make it acceptable to remove all the Able Danger info from the article, when CTs are using this as an example to support their LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"and this is what the conspiracy theorists are proposing" - Leaving aside for the moment the question of due weight, this needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source. What specifically is the citation for this? Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Did a little more looking and found those sources AQFK wanted to connect the film to the theories: [30] [31].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a huge oversight that Able Danger is not mentioned in this article. It's clearly relevant since it concerns the identification of a cell of 9/11 hijackers in the U.S. BEFORE the attacks occurred, lack of action on the part of the government after they were identified, even though they had been linked to Al Queda (which had committed previous attacks), and the attempt to cover this up after the attacks occurred. It's widely cited as proof of a conspiracy, and should be mentioned with a wikilink to the main article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A huge oversight would be omitting controlled demolition theories. This is a minor detail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's a citation that mentions it as a conspiracy theory: "After exploding onto the scene two months ago, the Able Danger story and the revelation of its identification of Mohammed Atta as an al Qaeda operative over a year before the 9/11 attack have gone through several mutations in the press. At first, despite its launch at the New York Times, the media regarded it as a wild, unsourced conspiracy theory." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/171kvqlt.asp?page=1 Note the word "exploding" which implies it was a major story. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned as evidence of a conspiracy by proponents: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-a-conspiracy-theory/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy. California: University of California Press. p. 158.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_34&oldid=1140263897"