Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 30

Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like

urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's already this, this, and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See

MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk

) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy? If the Bush administration is trying to conceal information from the public, that's a cover-up. Conducting a cover-up is a conspiracy to mislead the public. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless Bush is able to conduct the cover-up by himself, it's a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which citation is it? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you ask? There is only one video. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it's in the motives section. And, lo and behold, there it is! SK (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "Pax Americana" was Latin for "new Pearl Harbor". Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A better heading for that section might be "Neoconservatives and global hegemony" or something like that. Ghostofnemo (talk)

Looks like a good delete. Our job here is to try to present a

neutral article. The change only contains the CT's POV. There appears to be no attempt to explain any other POV but the CT's. That's not what neutrality is at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Febuary 2011
• March 2010
• November 13, 2009

And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This was awhile ago but what I remember is the lede was ballooning and another editor said in their edit summary something along lines of this has gotten out of control. So I changed it with the goal of making it much more concise and focused. Don't remember any big discussion or anybody reverting my changes off hand.

This is a 9/11 CT's article not a mainstream viewpoint article. The lede's goal should be to describe what 9/11 CT's are and briefly explain them. The "mainstream" POV is not ignored, it is described in part of the very first sentence and the very first section both describes and explains the mainstream POV. In the same vain why is 1/2 of the first paragraph about polls? If it has to be in the lede it should be a short sentence but I don't see the need for it at all as they are a reaction to the CT's not the theories themselves. While not absolutely necessary it is probably ok that motives are there because they are the alleged cause for the alleged chain of events, but again just one sentence saying proponents cite various motives is all that is needed. Edkollin (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to bog down in semantics, but this is a mainstream-viewpoint article - that's the only kind of article we have. It describes (should describe) the mainstream view about 9/11 conspiracy theories by presenting what the reliable secondary sources say about 9/11 conspiracy theories. To do that well, we have to say briefly what happened on September 11. To the extent that this article has developed as a pov fork of September 11 attacks, it needs to be corrected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Edkollin: There was no discussion probably because nobody noticed the change. I know that I didn't notice it until a couple days ago. All articles are mainstream articles. Yes, because this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, we should explain what those theories are, but we still should do it from the perspective of the mainstream viewpoint. As for the polls, I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede before reorganization

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]

Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]

Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"

An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.

I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.

Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.

"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.

Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.

This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.Edkollin (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and is pretty well known for delusional thinking and other wingnuttiness. I'd take anything she says with a big grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.135.91 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the

Abootmoose (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The people who believe in holocaust denial, moon landing hoax, and/or the belief that aliens landed at Roswell make the exact same argument for their pet theory. However, when you have a belief that is soundly contradicted by the evidence, it squarely falls within the category of denialism.JoelWhy (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a serious problem if you think 9-11 conspiracy theories are equivalent to any of those theories. The problem with the term denialism is it implies that something about the official version is beyond question, which would be true for some things related to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not all. Any category with the pseudo- prefix creates a similar problem in stating the account is false. Just because a theory is fringe does not mean it should be regarded as false. The conspiracy theory and fringe theory categories are perfectly fine. I also think the conspiracy theories involving Jews categories are inappropriately prejudicial. What I would support is the 9/11 CT category, the CT category, and the fringe category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think 911 conspiracy theories are roughly equivalent to those others. They all attempt to deny the reality of something that happened, or assert the reality of something that didn't happen. They all have complicated rationales that don't hold up under scrutiny. They all cherry-pick evidence and make false claims. The main point is that none of them are accepted among

reliable sources, and what we do here is report on what those reliable sources say. Mystylplx (talk

) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What I understand is that there are people who think all fringe views are the same and regularly lump them together, but it just isn't accurate. Someone who seriously thinks the earth is flat would not be the intellectual equivalent of someone who thinks the government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. One requires a complete rejection of known facts, the other only requires skepticism about the statements of living people.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, and to be honest I wouldn't put the LIHOP theories in the same category as moon hoaxers and flat earthers. Those theories actually have some sound basis. But unfortunately those comprise the minority, or at most a very quiet majority, of 911 conspiracy theorists. Mystylplx (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always had the feeling that LIHOP isn't a real theory, that it's just a gateway conspiracy theory to get people to listen to the more insane CTs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. We know that they knew an attack was imminent. We know that when the same thing happened during the Clinton administration he jumped on it with both feet, held daily special meetings bringing together the heads of the various intelligence agencies, etc., and that Bush, by contrast, didn't hold one single extra meeting. That much is on the public record. From there LIHOP is an obvious speculation. I've had the thought that it's the other way around--that the MIHOP theories were a smokescreen, intentionally or unintentionally, that did a good job of keeping the public's attention diverted from the above facts. Either way though, it's the MIHOP theories that are the bread and butter of 911 truthers and those theories certainly count as denialism. Mystylplx (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to make judgments of fact or fiction. The mainstream view is, in many ways, a very good theory. A position disagreeing with that mainstream view is not inherently denialist. A MIHOP theory isn't inherently less reasonable than a LIHOP theory. Talk about remote-controlled airliners and cruise missiles is certainly bordering on it, but ultimately the evidence does not sufficiently establish that this did not happen for us to treat it as a denial of fact. However, a MIHOP theory can take on other ideas and exclude those more questionable ones as many have.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the MIHOP theories I have heard are even remotely possible. All of them, in their various ways, are on the level of the hologram planes version, just not so obviously so in some cases. Mystylplx (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is because you have little imagination and apparently little relevant scientific knowledge. The controlled demolition theory far better explains what was observed than the NIST conspiracy which is frankly scientifically impossible. As regards the logistics of carrying it out, here is a hypothetical scenario demonstrating how it might be carried out with only a few people being aware of exactly what was going on. I imagine those so inclined can think of other ways. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the experts say. Mystylplx (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories definitely fall under the category of denialism. AFAIK, there are few, if any, historians would believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, I find Abootmoose's statement that "Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not." to be ironic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would really like some more opinions on this. I agree, it is a fringe theory, though a very popular fringe theory. Calling it denialism is just plain wrong though. I admit, there are holes in the 9/11 truth theories - but do you really, honestly believe the 9/11 commission report is perfectly satisfactory, and that the US government had no idea what was going on? People like you guys who want to label this denialism, and also classify it as an anti-Jewish conspiracy, when the Jewish thing is just ONE of many many inside job theories, are very biased. I am a skeptical person. I don't buy 9/11 truth entirely. But at the same time, I have read tons about 9/11 and there are many, many things that do not add up about what we are being told.

Personally I find the Wiki policy of verifiability before truth BS. But, I don't own Wikipedia, so there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. If we lived in Nazi Germany (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, lol) according to that policy we would have to accept Nazi references as legit because of their 'officiality' even if they were complete lies.

Wikipedia does not need to bow to authority and simply be told what they are heard. We just had a historical blackout of the site, to protest SOPA. How hard really is it to believe that the government that would consider such an oppressive law would commit something like 9/11? You guys tell me to get my tin foil hat off. I tell you to stop blindly waving your flag.

Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger, and people hadn't had the idea that 'Mooslims did it' beaten into their head for a full decade yet, the editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS. (Because if you're a good American, you never question anything, right?

Frankly my issue is I just find the categorization insulting. Academically speaking, to label a group deniers is a HUGE charge.

Abootmoose (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No one here is telling you to take off your tinfoil hat. Believe whatever you like. However, to post information on Wikipedia, you must follow certain rules and policies (e.g. reliable sources, etc.) There are a plethora of sites you can contribute to where claims can be made based on suspect sources. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them.JoelWhy (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Well personally, I would consider anything from the United States government in the past fifty years a 'suspect source' lol. America is not infallible, America is not God. Abootmoose (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Wiki page on Straw man arguments.JoelWhy (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Sorry, I just got a bit passionate. What I'm saying is what composes a reliable source is to large extent, a matter of opinion. Abootmoose (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We write articles from the mainstream point of view. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call

Flat earthers are an extreme version of denialism. I don't think anyone is saying that believing 9/11 was an inside job is the "same" as believing the world's scientists are trying to hide the fact that the earth is flat. However, denialism is a broad term encompassing a wide range of ideas. Believing that vaccines cause autism falls into the category of denialism. Clearly, such a claim is more believable (albeit equally unsupported by science) than that the earth is flat. The term is not intended to be insulting. It is simply noting that belief in such a claim involves a rejection of substantial objective evidence to the contrary.JoelWhy (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But where is the proof that 1) Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and that 2) Bush and everyone else in our government were completely taken by surprise? Abootmoose (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is part of why I think 9/11 CTs in general should not be regarded the same way as various pseudoscientific claims. Many "skeptics" treat this like it is purely a scientific issue, when it really is more of a criminal question. Save for the fringe among fringe no-plane theories, most of what is mentioned by 9/11 conspiracists does not challenge any aspect of existing scientific knowledge or postulate any new scientific principle. A number of theories do not even seriously challenge the physical evidence, but focus more on motive, means, and opportunity. Given that even people involved with the 9/11 Commission have expressed suspicions of Saudi support it would be silly to have the conspiracy theories regarded the same way as claims about vaccines.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually all the MIHOP theories I've ever heard are patently impossible. Whether you believe in silent explosives or that hundreds of tons of nano-thermite were brought into the buildings (occupied 24/7) and secretly planted exactly where the planes would hit (yet somehow not set off by the exploding jet fuel) it's closer to believing the moon landing was a hoax than that vaccines cause autism. And as I said, it's the MIHOP theories which make up the bulk of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you blatantly exaggerate what conspiracy theorists claim you can convince anyone that it's impossible. You also are presuming that all MIHOP theories are about controlled demolition, which simply isn't true. There is more than one way to stage a terrorist attack, if you will. One would be the much-approved method of not actually staging it, but just insuring that it occurs. Like the Nazis did, you find someone you know wants to do something and then make sure he is miles more successful than he would be if you did not help. Call it glorified entrapment. Polling suggests there are far more people who subscribe to that sort of view, one of criminal facilitation, than controlled demolition. Does that really seem more outlandish than vaccines causing autism? It certainly isn't pseudoscientific.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm exaggerating at all. Do a search on "911 truth" and the vast bulk of what you will find will be either explosives or nano-thermite (which would have required hundreds of tons, even according to Neils Harrit) Any MIHOP theories that aren't about controlled demolition are fringe even within the 911 "truth" movement. What polls are you referring to, because the odd mixture of MIHOP and LIHOP you are expressing is a new one on me and I thought I'd heard them all. Mystylplx (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it that their opinions criticizing the official theory are treated with such skepticism yet their opinions about what their theories would require are given such weight? I look at the NIST report that says a hundred pounds of regular thermite might be sufficient to bring down a building column. As to the polls I am talking about, the ones I looked at were here on Wikipedia. Most reliable sources mention this idea of a government aiding the attacks in the context of a foreign power like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some alliance of them and other Muslim states friendly to the U.S. It isn't quite as common to mention the possibility of the U.S. being an active participant without going into the controlled demolition stuff, though there are certainly plenty of major sources alleging a cover-up of the connection to U.S. allies. All the same, these are generally regarded as conspiracy theories just like the claims of the Loose Change crowd, yet there is nothing pseudoscientific or denialist about them. I could get into a very long

WP:NOTFORUM discussion about this, but the point is that there are many prominent MIHOP conspiracy theories discussed significantly in independent reliable sources that have nothing to do with remote-controlled airliners or nano-thermite so using the latter to impugn the former is inappropriate, even if the latter were pseudo-scientific in nature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk

) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't quite as common?" I challenge you to come up with one reliable source that even so much as mentions the theory you are expressing--that the U.S. Gov. facilitated the attacks, not merely allowed them to happen, and not a controlled demolition theory. Mystylplx (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, foreign involvement is mentioned quite a bit and when it comes to the Saudis or Pakistanis is treated as a conspiracy theory, especially since there are allegations about the U.S. government covering up their involvement. So we should not be categorizing the theories as they are categorized.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is foreign involvement is barely ever mentioned at all in comparison to the overwhelmingly more common controlled demolition theories. I wouldn't call foreign involvement theories denialism as they are merely speculation without evidence rather than speculation that contradicts evidence... but those theories are the fringe of the fringe of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is barely mentioned in articles about the conspiracy theories for the simple reason that those articles tend to be about downplaying the theories. However, it is actually mentioned more in reliable sources than controlled demolition and generally regarded as more legitimate by them. I can direct you to a Vanity Fair article that had in-depth seven-page coverage on the subject of Saudi support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself--first you say it is barely mentioned then you say it is mentioned more? One Vanity Fair article vs 100's of articles? Mystylplx (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Another straw man. Bin Laden was not the mastermind of 911 (that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and Bush was not completely taken by surprise. But it's irrelevant. It's not necessary that every single 911 conspiracy theory be an example of denialism to include that category. The bulk of them are examples of denialism. That's good enough for the category to apply. Mystylplx (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. And, if you don't like the vaccine comparison, there are plenty others to chose from. Did the Secret Service know in advance that JFK was going to be assassinated? Did the U.S. lay down its arms to allow the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? These all fall under the category of pseudohistory and involve denialism. Again, you're free to believe whatever you like. Wikipedia relies on "mainstream" media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that the the official report is true. That's denialism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It requires you to establish that the official report is true and is not just a widely-accepted theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia but an encyclopedia based on a consensus of reliable sources which by Wikipedia guidelines are "mainstream". Most of the time they will be the same but if Wikipedia were a "mainstream" encyclopedia this article would not have existed pre 2006 nor would thousands of articles on obscure topics exist.

Denialism is in its literal form not an insult but by far most people saying others are are mean it in an insulting manner and those who are said to be denialist take it as an insult.

"Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger". Very questionable While some reliable sources have noted a decline since the election of Obama and the economic downturn you did not have "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and similar organizations back then nor Alex Jones being interviewed by the likes of Salon and Rolling Stone. "editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS" well insulted people personally has and always been rare due to Wikipedia:Assume good faith there much more insulting and condensation towered the of the theories and even editor or two saying it was their job to promote Popular Machnics debunking of the theories something I believe would run into run into criticism today.

What is the proper forum to debate/petition Wikipedia's Reliable Source policies?. Edkollin (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the reliable sources noticeboard is here. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Know about that but your suggestion made me think that is probably a better place to ask my question. Edkollin (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the most prevalent 9/11 CT involves the U.S. planting explosives to bring down the WTC buildings? I'm not asking whether you personally believe this, or whehter this is what your friends believe. But, if you search the internet for stories on 9/11 CTs, this is the most prominent story told. Well, this theory falls squarely under the Denialism category.

Moreover, the generally accepted theory explained in the official report is supported by a plethora of articles and studies which are independent of the official report. Therefore, the other theories involving a cover up, foreknowledge, etc, also are fairly categorized under the denialism banner. It's not an insult; it just indicates that it involves a theory not supported by the evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute a great deal of what you are saying. Going against the mainstream does not inherently mean we should treat that view as "denial" and imply the mainstream view is the indisputable truth. A few lines from WP:FRINGE that are of interest here:

Given the prejudicial nature of terms like pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and denialism there should be reliable sources clearly establishing this as a "defining characteristic" of the theories per

WP:CAT. Only denialism has any notable mentions that I can find, though mostly in "skeptic" literature so that does not take away from the way the category skews the article. Like I said, the regular CT categories (not the ones about Jews) and fringe category are acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk

) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of the view being "mainstream" or "not mainstream". Creationism isn't pseudoscience because it's not "mainstream". It's pseudoscience because the science contradicts the claims being made. Similarly, the main CTs claimed related to 9/11 fall into the category of pseudohistory because the historical evidence clearly contradicts it.

As for the Jews issue, just Google "Jews" and "9/11", and you'll find a host of claims being made about how they were notified ahead of time, responsible for the attacks, etc. It's a prominent claim made, especially in the Middle East, but in the U.S. as well. There are many, many, many references acknowledging this.JoelWhy (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors can not the categorize something in an article because the editor concludes it meets the definition as described by Wikipedia. They can only do so if it is widely categorized that way by reliable sources. The old verifiable but truth thing. Right now it is most widely categorized as conspiracism. Edkollin (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's behind a paywall but here's a high-quality source which according to Google specifically mentions 9/11 CTs: How the growth of denialism undermines public health. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In Salon there's The 9/11 deniers by Farhad Manjoo, which we already cite. Certainly this article should be included in cat:denialism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent and cherry-pick you two! I searched for that paper on AIDS denialism and the mention of 9/11 given in the search results says what I imagined it would. The paper refers to 9/11 conspiracy theories and appears to be making a connection between the people who espouse them and AIDS denialists. As to Salon, the headline says 9/11 deniers, but at no point in the actual article is the word "deny" or any variant even used and "denialism" certainly doesn't pop up. Maybe you don't understand. This is not a game of "find the source" where just one or two sources that sort of imply what you want to say is enough, though really any source that does not say what you want the article to say is rarely enough.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed sources that say the conspiracy theories in certain circles focus on Jews, but this article is mostly about the ones not involving Jews. WP:CAT requires that it be a "defining characteristic" and that does not apply here. If "Jews are responsible in some versions" is enough then pretty much every conspiracy theory would have to be categorized that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I understand that the dispute is now about the "denialism" category and that most editors would agree the "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" categories can be removed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If anything there's a stronger argument for removing denialism than pseudoscience or pseudohistory. Mystylplx (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wha!? Where did you get that idea? I am finding even fewer sources that refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories with those terms.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is from your article, The 9/11 deniers. The article seems to actually give SOME credence to the more softcore truth theories, like the government permitted 9/11 to occur.

Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”

Am I the only person who thinks it's incredibly weird they were only able to talk to Khalid via the CIA? Or are you guys just too blindly patriotic to see anything strange and worthy of skepticism about 9/11?

Abootmoose (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There's far too much use of this page as a forum. Those denying the truth of the official explanation are deniers, so it's denialism. Simple as that. Even if, one day, any of their theories turn out to have some truth in them, today they are denying. Let's stop using Wikipedia as a forum and playing silly word games. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you think it is denialism, does not mean it should be categorized as such. "Conspiracy theory" is itself often seen as a pejorative term so it is not like there isn't enough sourced demeaning of the subject to satisfy you. No need to double-down with your unsourced opinions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so the real problem is that YOU understand Denialism as a pejorative term. Is it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that anyone accused of denial would consider it pejorative, just like so many are cool with calling the controlled demolition crowd conspiracy theorists, but get their panties in a bunch over someone using the same term to describe those who adhere to the mainstream point of view. My "real problem" is that the term is not used sufficiently to be used as a category. That it also fosters a biased view of the subject just reinforces the need to remove it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the problem there is that you used the word "accused". Putting someone in a category isn't an accusation. It's a description. And an accurate one. Why do you see it as pejorative? Where is the "accusation"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to add the antisemitism category to the Rick Sanchez article would you defend that by saying "I am only describing him as an antisemite, I am not accusing him of hating Jews"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who? Anyway, my post contained two questions and you only answered one. They were closely related, and you've avoided the other twice now. Why do you see it as pejorative? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I addressed all your questions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice. What makes denialism pejorative? Do you have a source for that? I ask because that categorisation has to be literally true. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that

WP:NPOV does doesn't say that articles should be neutral. It says that editors should be neutral. If reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory, we so should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe we should apply the same thinking to the denialism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory categories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a point here, did you intend to say NPOV doesn't say that articles should be neutral?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are three two more useful sources:

• Chapman, Jane (2009-08-24). Issues in contemporary documentary. Polity. p. 25.
  ISBN 9780745640099. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help
  )
• Rohleder, Poul (2009-09-29). HIV/AIDS in South Africa 25 years on: psychosocial perspectives. Springer. p. 129.
  ISBN 9781441903051. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Tom Harrison ^Talk
  19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"There's far too much use of this page as a forum" - Yup. We should just shut up and be good Americans, right!? LOL Abootmoose (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)