Talk:Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been vfded, and the result was that most people favoured a merge. Please do not remove the merge notice. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:41, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 NPOV dispute 2 Merging 2.1 from intro 2.2 Overview 2.3 Foreknowledge 2.4 Inconsistent Explanations 2.5 The pentagon 2.6 The World Trade Center 2.7 The President's behavior 2.8 Supporting Happenstance 2.9 Motives 2.10 Less Common Theories 3 Merge complete 4 Now that the page has been moved here... 5 Pentagon and WTC sections 6 Orginal research - Alex Jones and pods 7 Update 8 Proposal at "9/11 conspiracy theories" article 9 Proposal to remove a 9/11 researcher because of offensive links 10 Conspiracy theory 11 Motives References needed 12 Merging with Scholars Page 13 Title change 14 Alex Jones 15 Deletions - other notable people 16 Rename 17 Link Farm 18 Page is now NPOV 19 This page seriously needs pictures 20 Molten metal 21 Proposed rename 22 References needed 23 Deletions 24 proposed deletion 25 Rename & Move 26 Link Farm, Part Deux 27 Researchers 28 Mainstream journalists and officials who have written on 9/11 and the war in Iraq 29 www.accidents.us 30 Major havoc editing 31 Lyndon LaRouche 32 Stephen A. Beck 33 Daniel Hopsicker 34 Other notable people questioning the common account of 9/11 35 Merge from 9/11 Truth Movement 35.1 Researchers (2) 36 Requested move 36.1 Survey 36.2 Discussion 37 AK Dewdney 38 Media articles 39 is this serious? 40 New film / deletion vote 41 What's this word 42 Eric Hufschmid 43 Blanking of big chunks of information without consensus

[edit] NPOV dispute

The thing, at least the intro, is unnecessarily condescending about the US. "Conspiracy theory" is also used liberally, and against the standards of the "conspiracy theory" article.

• Removed tag. If a phrase appears condescending be bold, change it.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Merging

I'm in the process of merging the contents with 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have removed any duplicate links and moved the remainder. Next I'm going to work on the content. I plan to first remove anything that's already addressed on 9/11 conspiracy theories. This will probably involve a lot of deletion, so I'll copy and paste here anything I delete. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the moving of this subject matter will make 911ct too cumbersome. Its nice to have a reference page with all those who are doing research into 911. H0riz0n 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from intro

In the aftermath of September 11, researchers have investigated many aspects of the terror attacks.

These researchers have developed a number of alternatives to the official conspiracy theories.

According to the more widely accepted 'official' conspiracy theory, on September 11, 2001, nineteen al-Qaeda operatives - with bare minimal experience as pilots - hijacked four planes in the Eastern United States. After some 35 war game simulations during the preceding weeks by the US military, including five that very morning, they encountered no US defence intercepts and managed to crash two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the headquarters of the US Department of Defense at The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to regain control of the plane.

Some of the more prominent 9/11 researchers are listed below, many of whom are openly critical of the George W. Bush administration's official conspiracy theory concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks.

[edit] Overview

Although some alternatives to the Bush administration's conspiracy theory propose that operatives from Israel or Pakistan were behind the attacks, those theories which have drawn the most attention are most often based on one of two ideas:

1) that the US government had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them, or

2) that the US government itself orchestrated the attacks.

[edit] Foreknowledge

• After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents six weeks earlier which included the dates and targets of the attacks. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls.
• In the article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" by William Norman Grigg, published in The New American, (published by the John Birch Society) Grigg states that according to three FBI agents he interviewed, "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the FBI before September 11."
• An unusually high volume of put options were purchased in the three days before 9/11 for only two airlines, American and United. Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. Although no evidence has yet been provided that there was anything sinister in these transactions, US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent, untoward events.

[edit] Inconsistent Explanations

• Initially, the military reported that, on 9/11, no fighters were sent up to intercept the hijacked planes until after the Pentagon was hit.
• Later the same week, the military put out a second story, saying that it had sent up fighters but because the FAA had been late in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived too late.
• The 9/11 Commission reported a third version that the FAA gave the military insufficient warning of the first hijacked airline and no warning of the other hijackings until after they had crashed.

[edit] The pentagon

• Flight 77 was able to fly toward the Pentagon for 40 minutes and was not intercepted despite sophisticated radar technology, anti-missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon, and the building's close proximity to Andrews Air Force Base. Meanwhile, NORAD and the National Reconnaissance Office (which runs the spy satellites) were conducting war game exercises that confused the air defenses (including a "plane into building" scenario).
• Many consider photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous and unconvincing, although hundreds of people saw the plane, the crash or were involved in the cleanup of the plane parts afterwards.
• Pentagon surveillance cameras captured 5 frames from before, during, and after the impact, but none show exactly what hit the building. Some skeptics point out that these video images are clearly altered, probably an effort to entice the skeptics to embrace the "no plane" claims that are refuted by enormous amounts of eyewitness testimony and photos of Boeing debris.
• The FBI confiscated videos, which might have captured the attack, from a nearby gas station immediately after the attacks. These videos have not been released, although workers at the nearby Sheraton Hotel saw "their" video before it was seized. This suggests foreknowledge of the attack but does not support the "no plane" claims -- just a "psychological warfare" effort to get the skeptics to adopt a "theory" that discredits the real evidence by association. Newsweek reported that the "black boxes" were recovered from Flight 77, and this information would indicate how (and who) steered the plane into the nearly empty sector.
• Military personnel were photographed removing from the crash site a large light-weight object shrouded by a blue tarp [1]. Some conjecture that this was to hide its contents from the public.

[edit] The World Trade Center

• Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
• A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
• The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes.
• The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions.
• The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relies primarily on these two details. However, WTC 7 also collapsed straight down and at close to free-fall speed.
• The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for months after their collapse, most of the concrete was pulverized, and molten steel was found beneath it. The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 3000F while the most generous speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers is 2000F.
• Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft. long. Soon after the attacks, most of the steel colums were loaded onto trucks and shipped to Asia.

[edit] The President's behavior

• The President's whereabouts on the morning of the attacks was highly publicized. However, after the second plane struck the World Trade Center, the Secret Service permitted the President to continue, for at least the five minutes documented in the "Booker Video," reading a story about a pet goat in a Florida schoolroom, before giving a speech to the nation from the same school. At this time there would have been no way of knowing whether the President himself was in danger.

[edit] Supporting Happenstance

• Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004.
• A September, 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century (cofounded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle), entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources For the New Century, states the following:
  • "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."
  • "Further, the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
• Referring to Bush’s efforts to obstruct the 9/11 Commission’s access to critical documents, Senator Max Cleland said "disgusting . . . a scam. Americans are being scammed."
• Rep. Cynthia McKinney is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.

[edit] Motives

All theories as to why the US Government would have either perpetrated the attacks or allowed them to occur seem to entail one or more of the following motives:

• To justify increased defense spending.
• To gain the support of US citizens to invade the Middle East in order to control petroleum reserves and political affairs in the region.
• To justify passing legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, which is perceived by many to infringe on civil liberties.

[edit] Less Common Theories

• Numerous theories have been put forward suggesting conspiratorial involvement of Zionists, Israel, Jews and/or the Mossad. (Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories)

[edit] Merge complete

I'm all done, thanks for your patience and cooperation. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The belated merge into an article with the term 'conspiracy' is highly suspect, and merits something akin to an investigation as to why it was handled so poorly, more than a bit shy of the Wiki's standard of good faith. At the least, those who engineered this heist ought to have the merger debated on the deletion review page. Ombudsman 00:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Now that the page has been moved here...

Now that the article has been moved here, I feel it's important to maintain its focus. It makes sense for the intro and such to give a good overview of the underlying issues, but we should try and avoid going in depth about the same issues that are covered at 9/11 conspiracy theories. I certainly agree with others who feel that that article needs to be retitled in order to maintain title neutrality, but having this article be a "POV fork" isn't gonna help accomplish that. So most of this article should focus on the researchers themselves. The "9/11 conspiracy theories" article is a whole other mess that's gonna need to be tackled. In addition to its POV title, the article is (still) far too long, as it's become a dumping ground where everything questioning the official story of 9/11 was merged. At least two or three more articles with a specific focus need to be split off from it. And it will be a lot easier to do that if we can maintain the quality and focus of this article. That said, I'm gonna start editing out some stuff which doesn't really seem to fall under the specific scope of this article. I look forward to discussing and working with everyone here on this endevour... Blackcats 22:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved and truncated the "supporting happenstance" section. I've retitled it, and removed content not direct related to this article. I'll see where I can place it if it's not already place elsewhere. Blackcats 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon and WTC sections

Update - I've completed about half of the work in restoring the focus of this article, but the Pentagon and WTC sections still need to be removed merged into the main article (at least for now - ultimately that article will still need to be split up). But before they can be moved there, those sections in the main article still need a lot of work to be NPOVed. Currently, much of those sections reads like a debunking which asserts instead of presenting that position, often without even citing a source for that analysis. But I've gotta run and do some stuff now, so I'll try to get to that later, or in the mean time someone else can work on it... Blackcats 23:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orginal research - Alex Jones and pods

I removed some original research regarding Alex Jones and his alleged advocacy of the pod theory. The most egregious was Robite adding the (bolded) words "his belief that 'pods' were attached to the underbellies of the jets" (other words included for context). The fact is that the link to A. Jones's site [2] did not state a belief in the pod theory. Here's what it did say:

"Since other websites and 9/11 truth organizations began talking about the pod, this website has attempted to be balanced and air the views of both sides.

It is a common tactic for the government media spin machine to misdirect people's attention by getting them excited about one aspect of an issue, then later bring out evidence to debunk that aspect and thus tarnish the credibility of the entire subject."

So in other words they hadn't yet come to a conclusion and were still keeping an open mind about it at that point. Also, I have watched both of Jones's major films on 9/11 ("9/11: Road to Tyranny" and "Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State") and neither one of them even mentions the concept.

But even if he did advocate the pod claims, we cannot say that he was criticized for it unless we can cite a source that has specifically criticized A. Jones or his work regarding an alleged endorsement of pod claims. And neither of the two other links that were included even mention Jones's name [3] [4] so they can hardly be considered a criticism of Alex Jones!

-+-Blackcats 01:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work-SK

[edit] Update

I've now removed the WTC section from this article, as everything covered in this section is now covered at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article with something at least vaguely resembling NPOV. Please everyone help make sure that the coverage of this topic at that article is maintained with as much completeness and neutrality as posslbe. Thanks! Next to go - the Pentagon section... Blackcats 09:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pentagon section now fully merged into main article too. I think the proccess of restoring the focus of this article has now been completed. Of course both the passages that I removed are very important things to be discussed in depth, but that's just not what the focus of this article is (it's about the researchers!). So again, everyone should work to maintain its completeness and neutrality there. Thank you. Blackcats 10:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal at "9/11 conspiracy theories" article

I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 21:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove a 9/11 researcher because of offensive links

There is a researcher listed on here - Peter Meyer - whose website has a number of offensive links and I would like to remove him. I have never seen him at any 9/11 event and know of no one who has met him in person. According to his website, he does not live in the US.

Some of the links I'm referring to are these:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bush_betrays_america.htm This article features stars of David next to everyone in it who is Jewish - this harkens directly back to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear Star of David patches so they could be identified and ultimately rounded up for extermination. Here's one sentence in there: "Check out how the U.S. Department of Defense has been re-organized. That was the work of the Jew Cohen." Who writes like that? The link to this article is on this page (bottom): http://www.serendipity.li/wtc14.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html#zundel "Zündel, an award-winning cartoonist, artist and videographer, was Canada's best-known revisionist. For publishing a slim booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die? he was twice put on trial and convicted on a charge of spreading 'false news.'"

The Diminishing Numbers of Alleged Dead in Auschwitz (Caution: Considering the possibility that the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz may have been inflated, especially for political purposes, may be a thought crime.) http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/156377.php (linked to on Serendipity.li here: http://www.serendipity.li/ziolynx.htm)

I would like permission to remove this author. I find these links offensive and don't see why wikipedia should host him in the name of '9/11 truth.' Bov 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach this. The yellow stars of David are creepy and offensive. Beyond that, I didn't examine the site, but suppose for the sake of argument that everything you say about it is true. Clearly there are bigots and anti-semites out there. Anti-semitism is reprehensible, but I'm not sure that we should be concealing its existence.

The fact is there are people out there who think "the Jews did it." How many people? US, or world-wide? I don't know. I was looking at the popularity of various pages on Wikipedia a few days ago; I was disappointed to see how many people got to 9/11 conspiracy theories by way of a redirect suggesting Jewish complicity. I also edit some pages on the Byzantine empire. A few months ago someone added a paragraph claiming the Jews let the Turks into Constantinople in exchange for favorable treatment. The Turks captured Constantinople over 500 years ago, and people are still saying, and believing, that the Jews has something to do with it.

Some significant number of people believe the Jews had something to do with 9/11. I think that's idiotic, but I think a lot of things are idiotic. If the serendipity site fails to meet the the standards of notability that's one thing. If it's an embarrasment to the people who think a neo-con cabal blew up the World Trade Center so President Bush could start a war for oil, that's another thing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully to this --EyesAllMine 09:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Count me as one who thinks the Jews had something to do with 9/11, not necessarily with the attacks themselves, but instead Israeli surveillance of the hijackers in Florida and other areas where they lived. They knew of the planned attack and kept the information to themselves. Can you say, "Israeli Art Students"?216.174.52.173 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I started this article, and the Israeli Art Student article. You can all thank me later.216.174.52.173 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I absolutely OPPOSE the removal of entries posted on Wikipedia by researcher Peter Meyer regarding 9-11, conspiracy theories, etc. Are we now going to cowtow to the "politically correct" cultural marxism of those who wish to exert their control trips on the rest of us? Is freedom of expression of ideas now going to be silenced on this site because some people have a little problem with ideas and viewpoints that may run counter to their own?

A red flag immediately goes up with me whenever I see this kind of blatant maneuvering to stifle and silence the ideas of another person on a public forum. What are you people so AFRAID of? Are you afraid that too many people might read what Meyer has to say and might agree with his information/conclusions? How exactly is ANYONE harmed or "offended" by Peter Meyer's entries?

This "proposal to remove" Meyer is akin to childish foot-stomping more than a legitimate proposal. Peter Meyer has every right to express his ideas, articles, information/research the same as anyone else who posts to this site. I am not "offended" by opposing viewpoints of other researchers.

Rather than campaign to have someone "removed", why not open dialogue and rationally discuss and debate or refute the subject at issue? Are we all to walk in mental lockstep with "Bov" and those who think just like "Bov" in order to be able to post to this site? Is this what it's coming down to? Is Wikipedia going to bow to the petty pressure tactics of "politically correct" word nazis or stand up for every man's right to freedom of expression of ideas? Meyer's words and ideas harm no one.

It's more worrisome to me that some here would seek to blacklist another researcher. Very disturbing. Again, I OPPOSE Peter Meyer's removal. Freedom of expression applies to all, not just to some.

Lisa Guliani WING TV http://www.wingtv.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisa Guliani (talk • contribs) .

___________________________________________________________________________________________

That "bov" has never seen Meyer at any 9/11 event and does not know anyone who has met him in person, and that Meyer does not live in the US, are not valid reasons for removing Meyer from the list of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Bov's proposal to remove Meyer appears to be based on offence that is highly subjective in nature. Bov fails to provide any convincing evidence that any of the links on Meyer's site break any of wikipedia's codes of ethics or any national or international laws. If bov's criteria for admission to the list of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 were applied to all those presently on the list, it would a short list indeed. As such, I oppose the proposal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edenderry (talk • contribs) .

>>"If it's an embarrasment to the people who think a neo-con cabal blew up the World Trade Center so President Bush could start a war for oil, that's another thing."

Tom, it's not that it's an embarrasment, it's that it is offensive and antisemitic. Those aren't the same thing. The missiles and holograms are an embarrassment, the antisemitic stuff is worse. Please see the many wikipedia pages on the issue of antisemitism and holocaust revisionism:

• Holocaust denial
• History of anti-Semitism
• Christianity and anti-Semitism
• Christian opposition to anti-Semitism
• Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
• Arab anti-Semitism
• Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism
• Islam and anti-Semitism
• New anti-Semitism
• Persecution of the Jews

9/11 researchers have been labelled 'antisemitic' because of websites which intentionally pair 9/11 truth with antisemitic and holocaust revisionist information. I find it offensive, and clearly, many at wikipedia also might find websites that feature articles with yellow Star of Davids next to each person with a Jewish name offensive as well. Bov 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a request to weigh in here, probably because of my work on the Holocaust and Holocaust denial pages. Looking at this, I have to say that Peter Meyer is certainly a piece of work, and certainly anti-Semitic (though he will only say he is anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli and that he finds Judaism "least worthy of admiration than any other religion"). His little concentration camp badges next to Jewish names is certainly offensive as well, as are his support of Zundel and Holocaust denial. However, since this is a page about people questioning 9/11, perhaps he is notable enough to include (I wouldn't know), and being a racist unfortunately does not disqualify you for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Though, to "Lisa from WING TV" I would say that WP is not about "defending freedom of expression," or "standing up for one man" it is about expressing points of view accurately and neutrally in a well-cited manner, but since this page is simply a listing, his inclusion seems accurate) Instead, I suggest adding some sourced information to his entry explaining his attitudes towards Jews, and letting it stand at that. It is always sad how many bigots are out there, but we can't remove them simply because they are bigots. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've surveyed a large body of the 9-11 literature and don't know who Peter Meyer is so I doubt he is very significant. Kaimiddleton 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-02-03: I have corresponded with Peter Meyer, an outspoken man with strongly left-leaning views, many times. I have sometimes wondered when the following would happen: An anonymous person, unwilling to reveal his identity, using some pseudonym (here: Bov), comes out of the woodwork and starts badmouthing one of the earliest proponents of "911 was an inside cabal". Peter Meyer operates the frequently mirrored www.serendipity.li (and other .-endings) website, an ignition point of what then became the 9-11 movement. What I was wondering about now has happened: A "Bov" (Jim Hoffman? no, he would not do that!) has come out of the woodwork and is badmouthing one of the initiators of the 9-11 truth movement, ostensibly for anti-Semitism. It is important to be critical of "Zionism", and to keep the communication channels free from the unfitting reply of "anti-Semitism" accusations. Unfortunately, many Zionists (not all) are Jewish, so these two things Zionism critique versus being anti-Jewish - but stirred together by Bov - must be kept separate. I OPPOSE MOTION TO REMOVE! DON'T GIVE IN TO THE FALSE AD-HOMINEM PRINCIPLE OF STRIKING AT PEOPLE TO KILL ARGUMENTS! Dr. Stefan Grossmann, www.gallerize.com, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.177.241.158 (talk • contribs) .

---

Some here think they know what Peter Meyer's "attitudes towards Jews" are, but Meyer never says, or even suggests, that "the Jews did it." Meyer includes articles on his site which are written from several different viewpoints, but he is to be judged by what he has written not by what others have written. He expresses very clearly in his Reply to enquiry concerning "being seen as anti-semitic" what his "attitudes" toward Zionism and Israel are, but on that page he makes only one direct statement about Jews, which is to note that the Israeli occupiers of the West Bank "happen to be Zionist Jews", which is a factual claim which few would deny. Meyer's "attitudes towards Jews" are, rather, found in his section on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism where he writes, "Whether one approves of or dislikes the beliefs and practices of Judaism it remains that Jews have a right to hold those beliefs and maintain those practices." He make certain claims about Jews which are simply statements of fact (such as that most Jews are Zionists but not all Zionists are Jews) and he says that "Jews have no more rights than anyone else." Does anyone here wish to claim that they do? He also says, "Israel has as much right to exist as you have to give your neighbor's house to your relatives and force your neighbour to live in the street [I think what he has in mind here is the appropriation of Palestinian land to form the state of Israel and the expulsion of Palestinians carried out following that], but to assert this is not to cast aspersion upon Jews." These are not the words of someone who can rightly be described as "anti-semitic". He also writes that to criticise Israel "is not to make any criticism of Jews, but rather, of Israelis." So it is clear that attempts to slander Meyer as 'anti-semitic' have no basis. But this will not prevent those who don't like what he has to say, or don't like what he directs attention to, from continuing to make this baseless claim. And one more thing -- Meyer's "attitudes" toward Israel, Zionism and Judaism are irrelevant in this context. Since his work is well-known to anyone who is informed regarding 9/11 research, an attempt to remove him from the list of 'Prominent 9/11 researchers' can be supported only by showing that his 9/11 research is grossly flawed, but no-one has pointed out any errors in, for example, his Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11. Are the motives of those putting forward this proposal merely the usual motives of Zionists or is what Meyer writes in his 9/11 articles so much of a threat to continued belief by some in the official 9/11 story that those who wish to perpetuate this hoax are determined to suppress it? So I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL. Leon Ehrlich 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bov; readers probably will find these sites offensive. We're not linking to any website to promote, but to inform. The bigotry some observe is not presented along with their 9/11 theories, but is intrinsic to them. Clearly these people are a significant group among those 'questioning the official account,' and this site is representative of one approach. I agree with Goodoldpolonius2; the way to address this is not to remove information, but to add countervailing information. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, for those who may be unfamiliar with them, Wikipedia's policies about assuming good faith and making no personnal attacks. To work together we need to recognize that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to advance a theory or undermine a supposed adversary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both Tom and Goodoldpolonius2 recommend a way to address this situation, I'd like to take that advice and implement it. Thanks to all who have spoken up on this difficult issue. It is a learning process for myself as well, so I'm glad to use these experiences as learning tools.Bov 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the comment by User:82.163.190.32 because it's a personnal attack, and a rant that does not belong here. Also, it was in all caps. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose removal, Peter was discussing on Serendipity anomalies about the WTC collapses WAY before most people even questioned them, within a year of the event, it would be a travesty to remove links to his site. That said, i am rather disturbed by the contents of the article cited by Bov,not just the yellow stars, but the grossly racist comments about African Americans, Mexicans, Indians and Chinese people, and intend to let Peter know my feelings. But that's a separate matter.Jack Straw 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally oppose removal, on the grounds that "I find these links offensive" is not an argument. Many Muslims at the moment who find representations of the Prophet Muhammad offensive are trying to impose their values on the non-Muslim world. What do American Muslims make of this nonsense, living in a country with a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression ? There is no crime of Holocaust denial in the USA or Britain, nor should there be. If you start qualifying freedom of expression, it stops being a principle. I find Ariel Sharon's policies offensive - does that make me an anti-semite ? Even if it did, so what ? Just by discussing anti-semitism, you are acknowledging its existence : banning it is an attempt to deny its existence. It's an idiotic position to adopt, and if that's offensive, tough. And the same to Muslims in the west who are offended by opinions they don't like. When in Rome ... In Muslim countries, we should respect Muslim values. In western society, Muslims should respect ours. Freedom of expression is one of the most important values we have, and we should be defending it, in this discussion and everywhere else. Les Raphael 4 February 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.240.201 (talk • contribs) .

I stand in direct opposition to Peter Meyer's removal from being listed as a 9-11 researcher on this site. There is no valid reason why individuals trying to obtain information in this realm should not be allowed to see the links that Peter Meyer has, as well as any other researcher. In a free and open society where people should be allowed to make up their OWN minds, a move toward censorship is categorically the wrong direction to be going in. Meyer's links should stand as is.

Victor Thorn WING TV http://www.wingtv.net

[edit] Conspiracy theory

Why isnt the official theory labeled a conspiracy theory? For consistany, it should. --Striver 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On what evidence? In the true sense of the word the government story is a conspiracy theory--go read the definition. There is little to no evidence behind it. And more important question to ask is why doesnt the science add up?: How did World Trade 7 collapse when it was not hit by any plane? How can a jet plane only cause a mere 16ft diameter hole on impact with the Pentagon? Please tell me I want to know. H0riz0n

Oh, you're one of the people who believes a missile hit the Pentagon.. You should know that not even the "9/11 truth movement" agrees with this wild theory any more. Then I have to ask you this: where did the U.S. government murder the passengers of flight 77? Where did it dispose of the plane? Please tell me I want to know. Rhobite 17:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the most well-funded and slick efforts - the videos, 'In Plane Site' and 'Loose Change' - promote the most bizarre claims which most don't agree with, as you describe above. Can't imagine why anyone would create and mass produce all over the world the slickest hoax efforts that make us all look like nut cases. 198.207.168.65 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motives References needed

There are three commonly cited motives, however there are not a list of citations for these motives. Ansell 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Do you mean motives for a purported inside job? (Or motives for being a 9/11 researcher??) If the former, maybe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page should have citations here? Kaimiddleton 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about a conspiracy theory. I was saying that there is a list of three motives on the page under the heading Motives and they are said to be common within the supporting community of researchers but there are no citations to say where we can find examples these common statements of motive. Sure, if we read through the long list of supporters we may find some, but that doesn't change the fact that up front the statements are made without sources. This has not relation to the conspiracy theories page. Just requires someone who knows more about the research to dig up some reference quotes to back up their position. I am not in doubt that the quotations are not there in the research. Ansell 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That's rather clear. Thanks. Sounds like a lot of work! Kaimiddleton 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in the (perhaps naive) state of mind where I thought that the people writing that section in the first place actually had a few references in mind, and could just put them in. Someone who has read extensively into the academic research should have a few up their sleeve. Ansell 10:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you could probably find the cited docs somewhere in the huge Alex Jones website where he has everthing and the Kitchen sink uploaded. Actually, this entire site reads like one of his videos...did he write it? H0riz0n 07:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Scholars Page

I don't really think that works here, and I'm not the one who suggested it. I don't see why it couldn't be merged, but I also don't really see why it should be, when film pages like Loose Change get their own space and are not merged with anything. Bov 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the merge notice as it was not followed by any discussion. In my opinion, it also would not be right to merge a page devoted to an organised group, with one that simply details individual efforts, especially considering what the length of the resulting page would be. Too much scope for one page. Ansell 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

I knew it was you before I even saw the history Morton. But I don't think this title change is appropriate. For example, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, James Bamford, Michel Chossudovssky, Tom Flocco, David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, etc, etc, etc, do not fit the definition [5] of amateur. They either research or report in a professional capacity, it is more than a pastime to them, and whether any of them are inept would have to be a matter for debate. That's my opinion. I'm tempted to change it back,(looks like someone already did while I was writing this) but I'll let others put their two cents in first. Discussion before the change might have been alright too. SkeenaR 20:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Skee -- wouldn't want to disappoint you. You know I gotta do that sort of thing once in awhile, just to keep you tin-foil-hat types from getting stove-piped in your Halliburton-is-behind-it-all-Alex-Jones-Prisoner-Planet Echo Chamber (I say with tongue in cheek). In all seriousness, none of your supposed experts have the credentials to render a substantial objective opinion about what did or didn't happen on 9/11. What they really are is the Leftist version of the Right-Wing author and media personality opportunists (e.g. Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Tony Snow, et al.). These folks are entertaining, but you can't really take anything they say seriously -- it's all red meat for their respective audiences. They're fun, but not reliable sources that you can draw upon to write an encyclopedia. Morton devonshire 22:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your anology is correct. The leftist version of someone like Ann Coulter would be someone like Al Franken. Someone like Alex Jones cannot realistically be labeled left wing. Many of the people listed in this article have good credentials in fields like politics, intelligence, and military affairs enabling them to authoritatively comment those aspects of this issue. Some of them may or may not be right about what they say, but I don't recall any of them ever having been proven to be so full of BS as our esteemed official(or mainstream or whatever) sources(tens of thousands of 'reputable' journalists, Fox, GWB, yada yada yada). SkeenaR 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me that you don't really take Alex Jones seriously. We're talking about a guy that believes in all of that Bohemian Grove stuff. Morton devonshire 19:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about Skee, but i take him seriously. We are both accusmtomed to be called "nut-case", "tin foil" and any other degrading thing you can think of, but never being seriously argued against. Seems like name-caling is the hight of real critism razed against those holding Alex's views. --Striver 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree with everything Jones says, but he is worth listening to. Sure a lot of it sounds nuts, but at least some of it is surprisingly real, such as new developements in the surveillance society which at first sound far-fetched, but is really happening and is verifiable. He has his own spin of course. This is an interesting article about their perception of people engaging in logical fallacy to maintain their status quo of ideas. [6] I will add that Striver seems to be right that name calling does indeed seem to be the height of criticism against Jones and that I have never heard him seriously argued against. Whenever I have checked, his material seems well researched. SkeenaR 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Jones

OK, what are the W's? SkeenaR 01:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions - other notable people

First, it's misleading to say Kevin Ryan works for UL, the same company that certified the steel in the towers, as he works in the water testing division, and the article cited identifies him as working for Environmental Health Laboratories. He has nothing to do with steel testing.

Second, the Ron Paul quote questions the recommendations, NOT the findings of the 911 commission. Find a better quote if you want to include him.

The "fix" was to delete the reference orphaned by the Paul deletion. Do read the edit summaries more carefully.

--Mmx1 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

How about Researchers questioning the 9/11 Commission's account? Soon, Venezuelan [7] is going to reject the 9/11 Commission account, assuming it has ever accepted it. So there will be a real issue of what "official" means, assuming ther is not already one. --Striver 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Farm

What's with the link farm? I thought this was an article about individuals? Discuss --Mmx1 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a number of pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories are being used to promote the theorist's website. This ties in with citation of sources. When we say, 'conspiracy theorists believe X', and support that with a link to 911research.net, that's a primary source. In the absence of anything else, that may be acceptable. Better would be to cite an independent secondary source in academic literature: "Conspiracy theorists say X, according to Michael Barkun.(Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy, 2003)" Contrary to how it might seem, primary sources are inferior to secondary sources. A Wikipedia page that cites only primary sources is problematic. Primary sources are what historians and scientists use to produce original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We record what primary and secondary sources say.

Citations to 9/11research.net or nomoregames.net tell us what the operators of those websites think. Given the nature of this page, it is inevitable that it will be used for link farming. In this topic as a whole, there is an incentive to produce more and shorter pages about every theory, theorist, and event, since this results in more citation links to the websites. This raises the google page rank of the target site, making the websites appear more prominent, and justifying more extensive coverage on Wikipedia.Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't wiki append a noreferr tag? If not, certainly the robots.txt should prohibit crawling external links. --Mmx1 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any "rel='no follow'" tags. Robots.txt looks like it just keeps them out of selected name spaces like /wikipedia/. They don't seem to be restricted from article space, unless I'm reading it wrong - I'm no expert. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page is now NPOV

I think I have cleaned this page up enough that the NPOV tag can be removed, as this page is now just an explanation of what a "researcher questioning the official account of 9/11" is, and who they are with a link to other pages for better explanations.

I don't see any active dispute here, so I'm removing the tag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page seriously needs pictures

Right now this thing is just an unholy blob of featureless text.

Somebody needs to dig up some pictures of these people and the covers of the books they have written.--DCAnderson 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molten metal

If Wikipedia is going to say there was molten metal, we need a cite to a reliable source that says there was. Otherwise, we can only say, "X says there was molten metal." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Mr. Bryan: I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy. Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation. Regards, Mark Loizeaux, President CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC. 2737 Merryman's Mill Road Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131 Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX Fax: 1-410-667-XXXX www.controlled-demolition.com http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926

They came to help at Ground Zero. What they experienced they can't forget Slowly, the task force won them over. They threaded their fiber-optic cameras down whisker-size cracks probing for signs of life. And their four search dogs worked so hard unearthing cadavers that Turner's Aussie shepherd, Tough, was on the brink of burnout. Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. Back on the surface, he knew there had been a breakthrough in trust when he heard a New York firefighter shout, "Hey, we need a yellow shirt over here." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

American Ground Unbuilding the World Trade Center by William Langewiesche A National Book Critics Circle Finalist A New York Times best-seller "The most thoughtful and original [9-11] book to appear so far is American Ground, William Langewiesche's meticulous description of the rescue effort at Ground Zero and the subsequent excavation of the 1.8 million tons of debris at the literal and emotional heart of this calamity. Langewiesche was granted almost unlimited access to the site and the rescue staff, and he made the most of the privilege." --Malcolm Jones, Newsweek A national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, where this book originated as a three-part series, William Langewiesche takes us inside the painstaking and often dangerous deconstruction of the World Trade Center during the nine months following the September 11 attacks. Amid molten steel, whispers of leaking freon, the potential collapse of the protective "slurry wall," and treacherous piles of shifting rubble, Langewiesche uncovered a case study in American resilience. American Ground reconstructs the ephemeral and unprecedented experience of the engineers, firefighters, police, construction workers, and officials to whom it fell to bring order to chaos. "This is a genuinely monumental story, told without melodrama, an intimate depiction of ordinary Americans reacting to grand-scale tragedy" In his reporting for "American Ground," Langewiesche explored the shifting debris with construction workers and engineers, documenting the crises and questions as they arose. He crawled through "the pile" with survey parties and descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams. [Publishers Weekly, starred review.]

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer , "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." [Structural Engineer , September 3, 2002, p. 6;.]

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." [Williams, 2001, p. 3.]

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences , summer 2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." [Penn, 2002.]

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel. [Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health]

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report there being molten metal in the remains of the WTC at Ground Zero. Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations there later describes to the 9/11 Commission, "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." [9/11 Commission hearing, 4/1/03]

Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminds him of a volcano. To some, it was an environmental health disaster from the very first. “Standing down there, with your eyes closed,” says Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived in New York to help September 11th but didn’t arrive to the Ground Zero the site until the night of September 12th, “it could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano.” A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

New York firefighters later recall in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

“Once the area was cleaned, normal commercial trash collections resumed by the haulers that are licensed and regulated by the Trade Waste Commissioner,” Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris. “Management did a good job plotting routes, and the city provided us with special lanes marked with cones until we got out of the congestion,” Stephens says. (Sanitation Worker Eric Stephens, an 18-year NYDS veteran) http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. Herb Trimpe Adjunct instructor at Sullivan County Community College and former Marvel comics artist [8]

EyesAllMine 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on Waste Age, US News, and NEHA, I think the most we can say is that workers reported seeing hot and molten metal on September 12, and melted steel beams months later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are omitting a couple of structural engineers, a Dr. and a testimony from the 9/11 comission :) Oh -- and it was observed on 9/11, just before the south Tower collapse, molten metal was running out, as it is seen in this video clip EyesAllMine 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't actually get the source link for the structural engineer to load. As for the video, how does anyone know that was molten metal? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this PDF of The Structural Engineer works better? EyesAllMine 23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do sources in printed material count as less reliable than sources with a link on the web? Here are more, some of which I've mentioned, and some are new, all with references http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html. As for the video, what do you think it is? EyesAllMine 21:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Printed references are better in many ways, I just can't verify them as easily. Did you read them yourself, or did you read someone else's description of what they said? I see the link you just provided has the headline, "Workers Reported Molten Steel in Ground Zero Rubble." I'm prepared to say, "workers reported seeing hot and molten metal on September 12, and melted steel beams months later." (I don't see how a disaster recovery worker can be expected to tell molten steel from some other kind of metal.) In the video it might be burning plastic, or any of the many other things that were on fire then. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should not get into original research here. To me it is obvious that it is molten heavy metal flowing out of the tower. Plastic :D you are joking right? But never mind. It doesn't matter what you and I think it is anyway. I can live fine with the correction from "observed" to "reported" that you made. We are describing the content of the Jones paper anyway. And take your time and verify the above statements. A library comes in handy - as it did for me. Sure it takes time though. EyesAllMine 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a pdf of SEAU news (The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah) where you can read the statement from Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson. EyesAllMine 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And here http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ees/october2001.pdf another pdf shoving "Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25. Notice how the heat becomes concentrated towards the center from the fringe areas. The threshold between color ranges was 1/2 of the energy, so that in a range of 0-255, everything above 127.5 was kept (0-127.5) and everything below was ignored." (page 3) EyesAllMine 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another good reference with the occupations of the witnesses stated is http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html. Surely you could call structurel engineers, doctors and firefigthers for "workers", but why not state their actual profession, as it validates the testimonys a bit more comming from professionel people? EyesAllMine 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Weeks and months after 911 there was molten metal. Someone needs a pill. Unless there was a continuing source of energy - heat - then even lava would cool in that time frame. Unless half of NYC escaped from the loony bin on 910, then where did the heat come from and when and who or is this all disinformation.

[edit] Proposed rename

While it's up for deletion I won't change anything. However, I'd propose a rename to 'Researchers who question the official account of 9/11' - Richardcavell 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate would be List of 9/11 conspiracy theorists Morton devonshire 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Typical shill tactic, calling it List of 9/11 conspiracy theorists just to insult those who are sceptical of the official story, and all the families of the victims who want the truth to be revealed.

[edit] References needed

There is currently only one reference (as a footnote) in the entire article, so more references are needed to support all of the information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? Everey statement is referenced. Is it the format of the references that you want to be made as the foortnote in the bottom of the page? EyesAllMine 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That tag implies that the information is not sourced when it is -- it is only the format. 24.4.180.197 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll remove the tag then, and someone who is good at the footnote format, might get to work :) EyesAllMine 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and Kristen Breitweiser. The references merely point to their efforts to get the 9/11 commission created, and nothing to the effect of "questioning the official account of 9/11". The FSC explicitly states: "The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse." The fact that they have additional questions doesn't mean they the 9/11 Commission Report findings. In fact, they endorsed it. Furthermore, the unanswered questions are consistent with the "official account", but include questions such as: "Why were WTC emergency evacuation protocols not followed?", and "Why didn't the CIA share vital information about the terrorists with the FBI?". -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I noticed someone tried to delete the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission. Nice try, but they were the core researchers and advocates for the questions. There is literally no viable reason to remove them from this page. 198.207.168.65 21:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference on the latest advocacy of a member of this group, see: this interview with Breitweiser where she says:

BREITWEISER: Yes, I have to say two things really. No. 1, now that the Moussaoui penalty phase is over, I certainly hope that the information will be flowing freely to the American people. For four years, I and many other 9/11 family members have fought very hard to have information released go the public, information about governmental failures. We were always told that we couldn't have that information because it would harm Moussaoui's right to a fair trial.

Having said that, I would appreciate someone asking either Senator Biden or former Mayor Giuliani, if their standard for death is withholding information from the FBI that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks—how then are we excusing FBI agents Maltbie and Frasca, who were accused, or allegedly accused in the Moussaoui penalty phase itself, of being criminally negligent with regard to giving a FISA warrant.

How would you explain George Tenet, who withheld information about two of the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months from the FBI—information that certainly would have gone a long way into preventing those attacks. And I‘d like to know, where are we drawing the line here, what is the threshold, and why are we not holding those types of people in our own government accountable?

And I think they‘re going to have a long of explaining to do in Congress and at the White House when that information flows to the American people and the American people start asking similar questions." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.207.168.65 (talk • contribs) .

Sure, they have questions about the sharing of information, or lack of, between government agencies. These questions do not equate to "questioning the official account of 9/11". Their questions also have to do with emergency evacuation procedures, and include things such as "Was the White House a target on 9/11?" -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they indeed DO amount to questioning the official account. Family members submitted about 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission but only about a dozen were answered by the inquiry - did you read the questions? Here are some, which are the same that many other 9/11 researchers ask, which are not just about emergency procedures:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center. http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found? • Please describe the condition of each passport. • Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

• Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong? • When and where were they found? • Please describe their condition.

5. Why wasn’t Atta’s luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

Comment: Atta’s will, which was found in the luggage, includes detailed directions for handling and burial of his body. It seems odd that Atta would not realize that his body would be destroyed in the explosion when the airplane crashed and exploded. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit13.htm http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

24.4.180.197 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed deletion

The placement of a {{prod}} is inappropriate. WP:PROD states {{prod}} should only be used for "uncontroversial deletion candidates." Since this article recently went through an AfD without consensus, it can't qualify as an "uncontroversial deletion candidate." I'm removing the tag. --mtz206 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename & Move

Propose that this article be re-named Skeptics questioning the common account of 9/11 Why, because it's neutral. The current title leads one to believe that these people are actually "researchers", when many of them are simply advocates, and "official" is propaganda -- there is no official account of 9/11. Morton devonshire 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these people are really skeptics. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions? Morton devonshire 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppose we merged each section on an individual into his own bio page. The people not individually notable enough for their own pages could be moved to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. All that would be left would be the questions; I guess we could call it Questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have reliable sources who describe these people as researchers, or else we should note in the intro that they describe themselves as researchers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about People who have questioned the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report Morton devonshire 22:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

David Icke might dispute that, but I have no objection. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG! This man is the veritable Teutonic Titan of Tin-Foil Types! Thanks for making my day. Morton devonshire 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Art Bell would agree with you, but both the title suggestion and Tom's analogy are lame  : ) It should be left alone. SkeenaR 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be slamming Art, he's my Homey. Morton devonshire 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean Honey? SkeenaR 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you say "Lame" All right, seeing how there are no objections, I'll go ahead and rename.  : ) Morton devonshire 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Farm, Part Deux

I have commented out the links section, as per my earlier, and unaddressed concerns about link promoting. The problem appears to be growing worse. What is the purpose of these links in a list, especially when they are characterized as they are? Wikipedia is not a link directory, and good reasons should be provided for the inclusion of these links. I have commented to avoid an edit war, but my intention is to delete them. --05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to all the articles that were there about media, but I'm putting them back in -- those are not link farms. If someone moved them someplace else, please let me know. 24.4.180.197 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How many links to commondreams.org do we really need? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Researchers

I think the term "researchers" is used too loosely on this and the other conspiracy theorist pages. What exactly is a "researcher"? Is it anyone, including laymen, who cobble-together uneducated theories? What does one have to be to be a "researcher"? Isn't a researcher someone who has some expertise in the particular area being researched, and therefore can make a thoughtful and objective analysis of that which he researches. A "researcher" is not someone out to advocate on behalf of a particular theory, such as the conspiracy theories presented here, but someone who has an objective mindset. As such, persons such as Hoffman, Jones, et al. don't qualify. Morton devonshire 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone may have a particular point of view does not mean that they don't qualify as a researcher. Stephen Jay Gould had strong opinions, but that doesn't suggest that he wasn't a researcher. Are you seriously suggesting that people who have dedicated the majority of their time, expertise and knowledge don't qualify as researchers?[9] There is no orthodox way of defining it that I know of, but I've read that someone who steals the work of another is a plagiarist, while one who takes from the work of many is a researcher. I know what you are saying, but I honestly can't think of better terminology than researcher. SkeenaR 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gould is a perfect example, because he WAS a Professor of Geology, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the institution's Museum of Comparative Zoology, a Professor of Zoology, and he served as president of the Paleontological Society -- all of which qualify him to conduct research on the field he wrote and spoke about (evolution). Hoffman, Jones and the other so-called researchers don't even have advanced degrees in the subjects they opine about -- that's why they're not qualified. Heh, I have an advanced degree, but that doesn't qualify me to opine about subjects outside my field of expertise -- I could write books and lecture in the area and subject that I'm educated in and that I work in, but not in others. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Hi there Bright Boy. They have advanced degrees in various fields, but that isn't even important. Von Buelow commentates on intelligence or military aspects, and those are his fields. But so what, if you are going to say, "they can't be researchers because there is no university degree in 9/11 research". Unless you have something worth considering, this is settled. SkeenaR 09:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try that Straw Man stuff on me. Of course there are no degrees in 9/11 Research, but there are degrees in structural engineering, and none of these "experts" has one. Morton Devonshire^Yo

You are the one applying a straw man argument bright boy. Structural engineering is only one of many facets of the dispute. Just forget about it, your argument is void. SkeenaR 08:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream journalists and officials who have written on 9/11 and the war in Iraq

Hehehe ... is there any body else who can see whats wrong with the wording of this subtitle? EyesAllMine 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it. Yeah, that's a good one. SkeenaR 07:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good we are two! hahaha. What is going on here? [10] If someone want to make a list of ALL the mainstream journalists and officials (in the world????) who have written about 9/11 and the war in Iraq, they shall be welcome to do so. But why is someone trying to push it in here???? EyesAllMine 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If someone wants to yap about the mainstream coverage of this issue, they should get their own page so they don't have to clutter up the conspiracy theory crap. Also, how is 9/11 related to Iraq? Inquiring minds want to know. SkeenaR 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well im gonna remove the headline (dont see why journalists, who indeed use research as a tool, should have there own article). This article is about researchers an advocates who are questioning the official account. As it is now, its a mess. EyesAllMine 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.accidents.us

This link refers to a website wich is either not finished or just not working. a lot of the pages turn up blank. Furthermore I cant find any reference to who is behind the site, and I dont think this site is suitable as a source. Therefore I removed the following it from the article:

• [http://www.accidents.us

The site was design to address techincal issues involving the destruction of the WTC. Michael Bessendorf is the main author and a scholar specializing in Failure Mechanics & Dynamic Fracture Analysis. From his office in Getaway Plaza on the 24th floor he witnessed the attack 30 sec before the first impact and observed the tragedy for the next 6 hours. He is the only witness to observe WTC collapse from such a short distance (600 feet) and survived.

EyesAllMine 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major havoc editing

Big chunks of information, links etc have just vanished lately - without any discussion on the talk page. Title has been changed to a VERY broad definition. Im sorry but I object totally to what seems to be simple vandalism. EyesAllMine 12:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you get too excited, you should be consider that this page is given as wide a latitude as it is -- 3/4 of the citations violate WP:RS, but are tolerated, because many editors, including me, feel like you people need an outlet for your ideas -- this page is one of them, and the other is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Major havoc editing would mean deleting most of this article, and 99% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories pages as pure WP:OR. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I see you take great care to follow WP:BS --SkeenaR 08:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And WP:BALLS too. Morton devonshire 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche political activist, researcher, author, and perennial Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche thinks the attacks were "an attempted military coup d'état." [11]

I have removed this from the main article. Theres is simply not enough information in this. What has he written about 9/11? What has he stated in the media? What is his contributions? EyesAllMine 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen A. Beck

Stephen A. Beck is the author of, 9/11 Was an Inside Job. [12]

I have removed this too from the main article. Who is this guy? what are his points regarding 9/11? EyesAllMine 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the proper way to handle this, so if this edit is wrong, please let me know.

Just because someone in Denmark hasn't heard of Mr. Beck doesn't mean Beck should be removed from the list. Beck has conducted extensive research culminating in a 300-page book that does more than just ask questions. The list of people who have done intensive research isn't very long, and returning Beck to the list only makes the list more accurate.

Someone added Beck to the list for a good reason; it doesn't seem right that someone in Denmark should remove it because he's unfamiliar with Beck's work.(StephenBSirius)

I'm from Canada, and I never heard of this guy either. I don't even see him on google. He needs some notability. SkeenaR 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We still need to know more about who the man is, is he a journalist? where is he from? I cant find dhim on google either. According to wikipedia policies notability is needed. Please provide sources explaining his notability before you add him back into the article EyesAllMine 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • First, I apologize for reinserting the entry, I was unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works. Here’s what’s at the top of the "Researchers" page:

“Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. A number of people do not believe the mainstream media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and have developed alternative accounts of their own, or sought further examination by the 9/11 Commission and other governmental bodies. Some of these people are described below.”

Mr. Beck’s work certainly fits in with that description. Mr. Beck, a U.S. citizen, is a free-lance writer, the author of four books, countless letters to the editor and occasional guest columnist in the Detroit News and Daily Tribune.

Your Google search might be more effective if you put quotes around “Stephen A. Beck.” You won’t find much because the mainstream media has yet to discover Mr. Beck. But would you want a library stocked only with books that made it to the top of the NY Times best-sellers list?

You mention “notability.” From the American Heritage dictionary: “1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice.” Mr. Beck’s work fits that definition as well as the page description. Here are some comments by readers of his 9/11 book: "Very Thorough. Comprehensive. Compelling. Spellbinding. The truth hurts." – "What a truly great piece of investigative journalism." – "Thank you so much for putting all this wonderful data together." There are very few books that offer views that differ from the official theory; and Mr. Beck’s work deserves to be included in that short list.

I dunno. I still could hardly find anything on this guy. Regarding his book, there were just two links to Sunjam Books, there is nothing on Amazon, and I couldn't find anything about him and the Detroit news either. Nothing against him, but I wouldn't be one to include this guy in the article unless we were to include everyone who has ever done a blog on the subject. SkeenaR 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The guy has written a book (300 pages!) not a blog. Anyone who has written a book, major article, or has been a public advocate which contradicts the official account should be listed.67.72.98.45 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but it seems this book is a selfpublished book - sold directly from Sunjam books which has 2 google hits. Sunjam books is the publisher of 4 books - of which 3 is by Stephen A. Beck, and the fourth is by Anonymous.

I have removed Stepehn A. Beck again. He is not notable enough to get on this list. And no - Wikipedia should not include everbody who has written a book about the subject. You can read about it in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28books%29#Note_on_notability_criteria and WP:NOR. The book has not been mentioned by a second source, neither has the author. EyesAllMine 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Hopsicker

All of this should be in a seperate article titled Daniel Hopsicker.

67.72.98.45 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopsicker's researches in Florida revealed that Mohammed Atta, supposed Islamic fundamentalist, lived with a pink-haired American girl who worked as a stripper and lingerie model. He also had a taste for vodka and cocaine. Hopsicker concluded that Atta and the Florida flight school he attended enjoyed special government protection and that there had been an official cover-up of this following the attacks.

Hopsicker's work would appear to support the accusations of those who argue for U.S. government complicity in the September 11th attacks, yet Hopsicker himself scorns such notions. In radio interviews, he has embraced the essence of the official September 11th narrative - that Arab Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the attacks - and mocked the "conspiracy theorists." In fact, he has gone further and alleged that many of the "conspiracy theorists" are disinformation operatives whose goal is to spread nonsense and obfuscate the issue.

Hopsicker himself rarely attempts to advance a coherent explanation of what happened on September 11th but, piecing together comments he has made on the issue on his website and in radio interviews, it is possible to discern the gist of his interpretation. He appears to believe that the Florida flight school Atta attended was part of a drug-running operation sponsored and protected by the U.S. government. Atta, as an employee of the operation, enjoyed freedom from conventional legal scrutiny which, Hopsicker believes, he abused to plan and carry out the attacks on his own initiative. According to this interpretation, Atta was an Islamic fundamentalist only in secret, and his employers, the U.S. government, knew nothing of his fanatical plans.

Although convoluted, Hopsicker's theory reconciles the evidence of U.S government complicity and cover-up with key elements of the official story. Government complicity in facilitating the attacks was unintentional, in the Hopsicker view, and the subsequent cover-up can be explained by a desire to conceal the illegal drug-trafficking operation.

Yes, but a little info on his work and statements woul be good in this article, as we have done with other researchers. EyesAllMine 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 67.72.98.45 23:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other notable people questioning the common account of 9/11

This should be a seperate article with a new title.67.72.98.45 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to talk about it fine, though I disagree. In the meantime, please do not make wholesale changes like this without concensus. Kaimiddleton 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long. Those listed here are not researchers. So what is the problem?67.72.98.45 00:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, in a letter to US President Bush asks "Could it (9/11) be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?" pg 4
• Tucker Carlson is a conservative pundit who currently hosts Tucker on the cable news network MSNBC and is a contributor to two magazines, Esquire and the conservative Weekly Standard. "Sources say that was one of the many lies Pentagon leaders told Congress and the public to conceal a series of military snafus. Why are we just learning this now? What about the 9/11 Commission? Weren‘t they supposed to be on top of this? Wasn‘t that the whole point of the 9/11 Commission, to get to the bottom of what happened? Apparently, they didn‘t. Maybe we need another one because the result of not knowing is, what? Conspiracy theories. And those are bad for the country, especially when it comes to 9/11." [13]
• Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories Water Quality Services, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers." [14]
• Referring to what he saw as President Bush’s efforts to obstruct the 9/11 Commission’s access to critical documents, Senator Max Cleland said "disgusting . . . a scam. Americans are being scammed." Cleland on CNN, Nov. 13, 2002.
• Rep. Cynthia McKinney is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. Washington Post, Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16
• After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls. [15]
• William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the World Trade Center, singlehandedly rescued 15 people, and was honored as a 9/11 hero by President George W. Bush[16].Rodriguez, who heard explosions going off in the North Tower, is suing members of the Bush Administration for complicity in the attacks under RICO Statute[17].Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, is presenting the Rodriguez complaint[18].
• Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. [19]
• Former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution Paul Craig Roberts stated ”I guess the real story about 9/11 is about what the people are actually saying. I’ve gotten hundreds of emails in response to my columns and many of them talk about not getting the truth from the government or the media about what really happened at the World Trade Center. I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [20] "Who will save America" Counterpunch, feb. 6th, 2005
• Former 27 year CIA member Ray McGovern, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration Catherine Austin Fitts, fringe presidential candidate John Buchanan, former military analyst and author Daniel Ellsberg, actor Ed Asner, political activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and 94 other prominent Americans signed a statement on Oct 27, 2004, in which they ask twelve questions and demand a full independent investigation lead by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. [21]
• Journalist Hunter S. Thompson stated in an interview by Mick O'Regan, August 2002 "Well I saw that the US government was going to benefit, and the White House people, the Republican administration to take the mind of the public off of the crashing economy. [...] I have spent enough time on the inside of, well in the White House and you know, campaigns and I've known enough people who do these things, think this way, to know that the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened. " [22]
• Historian and former State Department intelligence analyst Kenneth J. Dillon devised the concept of "Anomalous Mistake-driven Opportunity Creation" (AMOC).[23] "AMOC", he says, "occurs when a government official charged with a certain problem commits an extraordinary error--one so inconceivable that no one can imagine that he/she has done it. And therefore the official gets away with it--and receives enhanced powers to combat the much more grievous resulting problem. As skilful politicians, Bush and Cheney were classic inside-the-box thinkers who lacked the insight to take precautionary measures that a reasonable person would have taken in response to the repeated warnings of an impending attack of the sort that occurred on 9/11. Therefore, it was a case of criminal negligence, not a conspiracy. However, after 9/11 Bush and Cheney conspired to cover up the evidence of their negligence, a task for which their skills were better suited. So there was a conspiracy, but it took place after 9/11 and is ongoing."

The lenght of this article is not a problem at all. And as the subtitle says "Other notable persons". I see no problem in having this in one article at all. So whats the problem? EyesAllMine 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from 9/11 Truth Movement

With the recent changes to that article, there's nothing distinguishing what should be in the respective articles, other than a short header of why it's called the "9/11 Truth Movement". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No way. Can't you see the difference between a movement and its researchers? --Striver 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote to bring the new info posted onto 9/11 truth movement and paste it here or start a new page. I appreciate the effort, but the info is meant to be on this page -- this is a detail page which lists individuals. The movement page is an overview page, not meant to be packed with everyone's competeing information. I also notice that some people are getting put on there who believe that planes didn't hit the WTC. There is almost no one who supports such views! But some of the people being put on there promote that. And groups like WING TV harass and trash others and say that researchers they don't like should be 'spit on.' I strongly discourage anyone from posting anything more about WING TV anywhere on here. 74.71.26.72 05:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about promoting or not promoting. Further i suggest you read the article titel: "Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 "--Striver 05:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider the first sentence of this article:

A number of people do not believe the mainstream media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and have developed alternative accounts of their own, or sought further examination by the 9/11 Commission and other governmental bodies. Some of these people are described below.

How does that differ from what's on the Truth Movement page? To be more precise as to what I would like to see in a merge, move all the individuals in the Movement here, and split this one into Researchers... and Research.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "research" is convered in 9/11 conspiracy theories. We don't want any of these pages to become a pov fork of that. I agree that we don't need two pages on researchers, to say nothing of list pages. I think we need to be more selective in who we include. We don't need to give a link and a blurb to every man with a website. I support paring down the coverage to only those who are notable and merging the pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think 9/11 conspiracy theories is a biased title, but that's a separate question. I agree that we don't need POV forks of any pages, even controversial ones. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a deffinitive difference:

• 9/11 Truth Movement - People who question the official view. No research is implied, nor is any theorizing implied.
  • Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 - The 9/11 Truth Movement members that do actualy do some research of their own, in contrary do those who do no reasearch at all and only consume research, or those who are not even intrested in research.
    • 9/11 conspiracy theories - The pejorative named title describing the Researchers theories. Should be renamed to the NPOV title Alternative 9/11 theories or Alternative 9/11 accounts.

--Striver 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I appreciate your goals, but generally a page about a movement would not be a list of all the individuals involved, but would be a general overview, like the page Peace movement - it's an overview with highlights, but not a list of people and categories. If there's a way to rework this page with the new info, either to add it in or to start a new page, I think that would be better. What if you separated 'individuals' from 'researchers' on this page, and named it Individuals and Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11? Or something else? That way all are covered and this page is appropriately a list and catalog format, which the other page is not. You are right that they are different groups, but I think they can both be on this page, just organized better, the way you are doing on the truth movement page. I agree that this list is frustrating as it is with this title. 74.71.26.72 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I acctualy do not care much for were it is, just as long as it is somewere. Before, there was a list on the 9/11TM page, i splited it onto another page, since it took to much space in the main article. That page was propsed to deltetion, it survived one, but was deleted on the second. The info was nowere for a while, but i recently re-added the info to the 911TM article. If you want, then you can re-split the article, re-creating People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report, there is nothing to stop you, and you have my blessing. --Striver 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look folks, this is another bad idea that keeps rearing its ugly head in one form or another. If there is overlap, fine. I'm sure there is overlap in some of the numerous articles about Mariah Carey. First people vote to delete 911 Truth Movement. Failing that they vote to merge it into here (or vice-versa). In case no one noticed, there are lots of people working on these pages. Sometimes one wants to refer to a page about researchers, with a nice summary of each person, sometimes one wants to refer to a page about the movement in general, with it's origins, broad scope, and major events. This is a good and logical division. Please don't muddy the waters trying to merge these two large articles. Kaimiddleton 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. --Striver 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. There is no difference in present charter between 9/11 Truth Movement and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. User:Striver has been adding the individual person list to 9/11 Truth Movement. There would be some logic to maintaining them as separate articles if he hadn't done that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

no difference? Really? --Striver 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is really obvious that there is a major distinction between the two pages, too much of a distinction to bother considering a merge. That's my two cents. SkeenaR 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I think the additions to the 9/11 Truth movement page are better for the researchers page and not appropriate for the 'overview' style of the truth movement page. They really clutter and bog down the truth movement page as it is now. I made an effort to clean it up. If someone wants to reintegrate that removed info onto the researchers page, okay, but it could not stand as it was. bov 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bov, the people you removed can not be put here, the Jersey Girls are not researcher, just to take one example, nor it Immortal tec a researcher. Im restoring them to there.--Striver 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ some about the Jersey Girls. They have done extensive research into the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if you caught some of the TV shows that covered them, especially PBS, but they were very organized about their research. Kaimiddleton 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said: 911 Truth Movement = overview of the movement + events; and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 = a list of researchers (mostly). So I think Arthur Rubin has a point when it comes to the list of Media articles that Striver (was it Striver?) put onto the researchers page. Thus I think that list is the central problem. I actually can't think of where else they would go. Maybe we could try putting them on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page .... Kaimiddleton 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And why not putting them in People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report? --Striver 10:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very broad definition (people) on a fragment of the 9/11 issues (the 9/11 commision report). Why do you think that is needed Striver? EyesAllMine 12:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Researchers (2)

I'm afraid "researchers" may be a POV word in this context. How can you tell whether someone has "researched" the question or copied someone else's research without looking closely. Perhaps this article should be renamed from Researchers to People? (See #Researchers above for another, related comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. "Researchers" is not the appropriate term. --Tbeatty 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agree completely. Go ahead and redirect it to the new name. Morton devonshire 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If someone spends a large amount of time compiling information about the subject, publishing their information or speaking about it publicly, cross-checking with other sources, watching the historical trend of the development of the research on that subject, then, guess what: they're a researcher. Changing this to "People" would be a sorry dilution of the intent of the article. Kaimiddleton 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Researcher is a non-qualitative word, i.e. it does not inherently define the worth of the individual or the result. Looking at a newspaper cutting can be research at its most simple form. This seems to be the word that is commonly used for the people in question, since they are doing research — regardless of what one makes of the nature of it. Tyrenius 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Researcher" over qualifies the entire list. Might as well call Al Gore a scientist for his Internet work and Global Warming studies. --Tbeatty 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a simple method in policy to sort out the problem, which is WP:VERIFY, namely if a verifiable secondary source calls someone a researcher, then it is acceptable. Tyrenius 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, do you want to delete (or comment out) all those for which we don't have a cite calling them a researcher? If WP:VERIFY is the relevant policy (which I don't think it is), then that would be the next step. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And if the standard includes "Looking at a newspaper cutting can be research at its most simple form", then we might as well rename it to "People...", with the understanding that the title implies "People notable for questioning the offical account of 9/11". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is a non-negotiable policy. It is not up to us to decide whether someone is researcher or not — that is OR. If they've been deemed a researcher in a reliable secondary source, then we should say that. In this instance, someone's own website may be used as description of their activities, i.e. if they say they are doing research, then they are a researcher (whether a good or bad researcher is not the point). If there is nothing to say they are a researcher, then we might be better off avoiding the term for that individual, and use something that targets their activity more precisely, e.g. engineer, film producer etc. What we can't do is to devise our own definition and then decide if someone fits it or not. Tyrenius 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PS If everyone's happy using the term "researcher" for convenience, that's fine with me, but as that usage has been challenged, and no other consensus reached, it defaults to playing it by the book. Tyrenius 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we drop all those who are not specifically called a "researcher" by a WP:RS, not including the "researcher's own site or other 9/11 conspiricy sites, this is reasonable. There may be only 3 or 4 names left, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AK Dewdney

Strange that there is no mention of Alexander Dewdney and Physics 911. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) 13:56, September 1, 2006 (UTC)

Our friend who is trying to confuse the issue put him in "participants" under 9/11 Truth Movement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media articles

I think many of the articles in "Media articles questioning the official account of 9/11" should be removed since the article (or the author) isn't questioning the account itself, but merely reporting on those who do. There is a difference, and WP is not meant to be a collection of news articles about a topic. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done67.72.98.47 12:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The media articles chronicle the types of questions which were examined over the years, which differed from year to year. Early on there were the questions of the put options and where the fighter jets were. Only after several years did the questions about demolition begin to appear. It is not simply a list but functions to show how the investigation changed over time. bov 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps they belong in Media articles chronicles the types of questions which were examined.... This article is about researchers, not the articles reporting on their work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is this serious?

the title itself shats on NPOV. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that -- conspiracy theories. yeah people generally give that a negative connotation, but these people are _theorizing_ about a government _conspiracy_. it's the exact term.

even if the title wasn't biased, it's just silly. any prominent trutheroos can easily be merged into the general article on the subject. and they have their own pages. iTrey 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New film / deletion vote

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth. Badagnani 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's this word

I am not a native English speaker, however, I am befuddled by the term "mischaracterized" used in the section about Barrie Zwicker. I can't find this term on Merriam-Webster and I cannot assign a unique meaning to it either. Is the meaning rather parodied or misrepresented? If the latter, the paragraph becomes somewhat incomprehensible. __meco 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[24] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Hufschmid

I've reinserted Eric Hufschmid, as hes research is notable enough to have been used by a professor, David Ray Griffin, and a former German minister, Andreas von Bülow. EyesAllMine 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of big chunks of information without consensus

I've reinserted both the article list, and the "other notable people ...". Just deleting this from Wikipedia isn't good enuff monsiers! Let's discuss what to do with it here on the talkpage. EyesAllMine 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about compromise, and put it where it belongs, which is not in this article. Morton devonshire 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better Morton. When will you do it? EyesAllMine 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record this is what have been removed from the article:

Other notable people questioning the common account of 9/11

• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, in a letter to US President Bush asks "Could it (9/11) be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?" pg 4
• Tucker Carlson is a conservative pundit who currently hosts Tucker on the cable news network MSNBC and is a contributor to two magazines, Esquire and the conservative Weekly Standard. "Sources say that was one of the many lies Pentagon leaders told Congress and the public to conceal a series of military snafus. Why are we just learning this now? What about the 9/11 Commission? Weren‘t they supposed to be on top of this? Wasn‘t that the whole point of the 9/11 Commission, to get to the bottom of what happened? Apparently, they didn‘t. Maybe we need another one because the result of not knowing is, what? Conspiracy theories. And those are bad for the country, especially when it comes to 9/11." [25]
• Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories Water Quality Services, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers." [26]
• Referring to what he saw as President Bush’s efforts to obstruct the 9/11 Commission’s access to critical documents, Senator Max Cleland said "disgusting . . . a scam. Americans are being scammed." Cleland on CNN, Nov. 13, 2002.
• Rep. Cynthia McKinney is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. Washington Post, Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16
• After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls. [27]
• William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the World Trade Center, singlehandedly rescued 15 people, and was honored as a 9/11 hero by President George W. Bush[28].Rodriguez, who heard explosions going off in the North Tower, is suing members of the Bush Administration for complicity in the attacks under RICO Statute[29].Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, is presenting the Rodriguez complaint[30].
• Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. [31]
• Former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution Paul Craig Roberts stated ”I guess the real story about 9/11 is about what the people are actually saying. I’ve gotten hundreds of emails in response to my columns and many of them talk about not getting the truth from the government or the media about what really happened at the World Trade Center. I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [32] "Who will save America" Counterpunch, feb. 6th, 2005
• Former 27 year CIA member Ray McGovern, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration Catherine Austin Fitts, fringe presidential candidate John Buchanan, former military analyst and author Daniel Ellsberg, actor Ed Asner, political activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and 94 other prominent Americans signed a statement on Oct 27, 2004, in which they ask twelve questions and demand a full independent investigation lead by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. [33]
• Journalist Hunter S. Thompson stated in an interview by Mick O'Regan, August 2002 "Well I saw that the US government was going to benefit, and the White House people, the Republican administration to take the mind of the public off of the crashing economy. [...] I have spent enough time on the inside of, well in the White House and you know, campaigns and I've known enough people who do these things, think this way, to know that the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened. " [34]
• Historian and former State Department intelligence analyst Kenneth J. Dillon devised the concept of "Anomalous Mistake-driven Opportunity Creation" (AMOC).[35] "AMOC", he says, "occurs when a government official charged with a certain problem commits an extraordinary error--one so inconceivable that no one can imagine that he/she has done it. And therefore the official gets away with it--and receives enhanced powers to combat the much more grievous resulting problem. As skilful politicians, Bush and Cheney were classic inside-the-box thinkers who lacked the insight to take precautionary measures that a reasonable person would have taken in response to the repeated warnings of an impending attack of the sort that occurred on 9/11. Therefore, it was a case of criminal negligence, not a conspiracy. However, after 9/11 Bush and Cheney conspired to cover up the evidence of their negligence, a task for which their skills were better suited. So there was a conspiracy, but it took place after 9/11 and is ongoing."

Quite a lot of theese people are using research as a tool here. And im gonna move them back into the main article.

Media articles questioning the official account of 9/11

• 500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11, Alan Feuer, The New York Times, June 2006.
• Opinion split over 9/11 report, Keith Phucas, The Times Herald, May 2006
• The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll Mark Jacobson, New York Magazine, March 2006
• Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out Anna Chang-Yen, Daily Herald, February 2006
• 9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions Robert Steinback, Miami Herald, February 2006
• A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask Werther, Counterpunch, February 2006
• The Seekers: The birth and life of the '9-11 Truth movement' Jarrett Murphy, The Village Voice, February 2006
• Open and Shut -- Four years later, we still have ten big questions Jarrett Murphy, The Village Voice, December 2005
• Running From the Truth: 9-11 Commission dealt with several issues by simply ignoring them James Ridgeway, Village Voice,December, 2005.
• BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC Elaine Jarvik,Deseret Morning News, November 2005
• 'BYU Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks'KUTV News Video, November 2005
• Jonesing on conspiracy theories Bill Steigerwald, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, November 2005
• Questioning what happened on 9/11Tucker Carlson, 'The Situation,' MSNBC, November 2005
• Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions About 9/11 Peter Phillips, CommonDreams.org, March 2005
• What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us Robert Scheer, The Los Angeles Times, February 2005
• The 9/11 Commission Avoids the Hard Questions Mark A. Dunlea, The Albany Times Union / New York, April, 2004
• Lawyers Try to Gag FBI Worker over 9/11 Andrew Buncombe, the Independent/UK, April, 2004
• Where Was the Air Force? The Real Question on 9-11 Ted Rall, UExpress, March, 2004
• 'Whitewash': 9/11 Director Gave Evidence to Own Inquiry Shaun Waterman, UPI, January, 2004
• Deal on 9/11 Briefings Lets White House Edit Papers Philip Shenon, The New York Times, November, 2003
• Why Don't We have Answers to these 9/11 Questions? William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News (Op Ed), September 2003
• Barbs Aside, 9/11 Questions Aren't Going Away Michele Landsberg, Toronto Star May, 2003
• Conspiracy Crusader Doubts Official 9/11 Version Michele Landsberg, Toronto Star May, 2003
• Graham Alleges a 9/11 'Coverup' Josh Meyer, the Los Angeles Times, May 2003
• It's a Conspiracy! The Rumor Mill Continues to Grind Out 9-11 Tales, Some Nutty and Some With a Grain of Truth Harvey Wasserman, CommonDreams.org, July 2002
• The White Van: Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? ABC News, June, 2002
• The truth is out there ...right? by Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, February 23, 2002

Such big deletions isn't just done witout a warning and a hearsay. Its simply bad wiki-editing just deleting all this information. Lets discuss what to do with it and reach a consensus. EyesAllMine 06:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another list: Prominent Patriots Questioning 9/11 EyesAllMine 09:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving up. You just keep deleting without discussion and consensus. So congrats guys... I haven't got the time to edit Wikipedia 24/7, but you seem to have! Grouping together to be able to go around the 3RR, which you have been doing again and again, is just like cheating. So much for the wiki project! Its not the verirfiable truth that is winning here, just the people with enough time. I can only ask anybody who comes by to check out the way this pow pushing is being done by Tom, Mongo, Morton, etc. etc. Some of them administrators who again and again strays far away from the spirit of Wikipedia. EyesAllMine 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

fyi, the site Prominent Patriots Questioning 9/11 includes hologram and no-plane-at-wtc promoters (Shayler and Reynolds), which is problematic for the credibility of the movement. I've asked the webmaster about it, but he ignored me. bov 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I hope, but we do not exclude researchers because they detract from the 'credibility of the movement.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)