Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:27, 3 January 2025

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories at the Reference desk.

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theories. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does this article not discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories as a valid scientific or historical hypothesis? A1: Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field generally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would be a disservice to our readers to have a full description of the topic that does not reflect the consensus view. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources guidelines. Q2: Doesn't Misplaced Pages's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment? A2: Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality does not require that all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Misplaced Pages, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant scholarly, academic, or otherwise expert community. If that community rejects an idea with unanimity or near-unanimity, due weight requires that that rejection be presented. Q3: Why didn't you include (other theory) in the article? A3: Misplaced Pages's due weight guidelines state that an article should "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Thus, we cover those conspiracy theories which have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Q4: Isn't the official government story a "conspiracy theory" too? A4: Misplaced Pages refers to reliable mainstream sources when determining appropriate descriptions. As such sources do not commonly refer to the official account as a "conspiracy theory" neither do articles here. The term conspiracy theory is typically used for claims that an event is "the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." Although the version in government reports would fit the literal meaning of the term, conspiracy theories are generally viewed as theories that "read between the lines," and assume a hidden motive & massive manipulation of evidence to deceive the public. By nature, conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated and intended to question the official or scientific explanation. Q5: Isn't "conspiracy theory" a pejorative term? Shouldn't the article be named something more neutral? A5: Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers. Q6: My edit was cited. Why was it removed? A6: Misplaced Pages requires all contentious claims be cited to reliable sources. This is difficult with conspiracy theories, as they are already outside the mainstream. Generally speaking, we do not consider citations from blogs, websites with no editorial oversight, or YouTube videos to be reliable. If the material is about living people, this is especially important. If you feel your citation fits within Misplaced Pages's guidelines, please post a comment on the Talk page so it can be discussed.

	9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 12, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: September 11 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Low-importance). New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (11 September 2011). "On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars'". The New York Times.

Section sizes Section size for 9/11 conspiracy theories (39 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,320 9,320 Background 7,363 7,363 History 21,643 21,643 Types 2,818 2,818 Theories 15 75,434 Foreknowledge 1,247 15,418 Suspected insider trading 6,774 6,774 Air-defense stand-down theory 4,566 4,566 Alleged communications leak 1,116 1,116 Israeli agents 1,715 1,715 World Trade Center 15,144 15,144 Pentagon 12,717 12,717 Flight 93 8,309 8,309 Hijackers 4,647 4,647 Foreign governments 2,883 15,972 Israel 6,506 6,506 Antisemitism in conspiracy theories 2,650 2,650 Saudi Arabia 3,933 3,933 No-planes theory 3,212 3,212 Cover-up allegations 28 7,948 Cockpit recorders 2,542 2,542 Bin Laden tapes 4,641 4,641 CIA recruitment efforts 737 737 Motives 15 4,240 Pax Americana 1,815 1,815 Invasions 2,060 2,060 New World Order 350 350 Suggested historical precedents 1,581 1,581 Proponents 8,001 11,729 Analysis 3,728 3,728 Media reaction 25,163 25,163 Criticism 11,824 11,824 In politics 13,450 13,450 Legal cases 1,239 1,239 See also 383 383 Notes 26 26 References 1,732 1,732 Bibliography 6,384 6,384 External links 2,030 2,030 Total 204,307 204,307

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YourGuyJY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section on insider trading includes the excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report describing how one firm purchased 95% of the put options on one of the days, but does not mention the detail that this was Alex. Brown, which A. B. Krongard had been a director at. This was mentioned in the press at the time. Example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mystery-terror-insider-dealers-9237061.html 216.164.226.176 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, not in reference given. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There are differing views as to which title better satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, as well as how to weigh the criteria of consistency and precision. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories → September 11 conspiracy theories – Most other articles in the topic area call it the "September 11 attacks" or just "September 11", not "9/11". The last move request was in 2010, but consensus could have changed since then. Another alternative could be Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. After reading User talk:Crouch, Swale's comment and thinking about it some more, the current title probably is the more common term, despite it not being consistent with our other article titles. I'm now neutral on this move. Support to be WP:CONSISTENT with the formatting of main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose this was discussed in 2018, see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 40#Requested move 18 December 2018. Google results for September 11 conspiracy theories mainly return things calling it 9/11 conspiracy theories. Yes we should generally try to be consistent but given this is seems to be more of a named topic rather than a descriptive title I think we look at what this is called not the main event. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support people say "9/11" because it's faster (and the people on Twitter who promote these theories would say "Bush did 9/11" because they are using a spoken register in their writing), but in written registers "September 11" is preferred. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to main general suggestion. In particular, note that “September 11” and “conspiracy theory” when combined created a longer title than necessary. Moreover, the terrorist attacks aren’t actually the primary topic of “September 11”, but they are the primary topic of “9/11”. This type of move seems to have zero benefit at best, but many drawbacks at worst. Strong oppose to last alternative suggestion. That is an excessively unwieldy title. Could serve as a good redirect. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 202A Writing in the Social Sciences

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charisse.v (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Openskies789, Sbradford1149, Kaylingonzalez00.

— Assignment last updated by Openskies789 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

citation needed for this?

"According to an international poll that same year, huge majorities in Muslim countries prefer to believe baseless conspiracy theories rather than listen to the mainstream facts of what happened on September 11, 2001, in New York City and Washington. "

in any case I think this is a very un-wikipedia-like sentence, even if it is true (which seems unlikely to me). why not:

According to an international poll that same year, a majority of the population of some Muslim countries believe in some form of 9/11 conspiracy theory.

or something similar 2601:249:8A80:2550:889D:99AE:2575:5D08 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That does sound better. Dronebogus (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear demolition

There needs to be the underground nuclear demolition section added to the conspiracy theory section, there is wide and thorough research into this category by nuclear physicists and demolition experts. Please include it. 2601:280:C781:B7F0:BCCB:D650:2632:1ED1 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources documenting these claims first. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gas pipeline through Afghanistan as conspiracy.

I find it odd that in this article the person has listed this as conspiracy theory..According to the fact the beginning of this pipeline started in 2015. 2604:2D80:DA10:4B00:3D63:1DD8:E70:7997 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that the attacks in the USA were staged in order to justify a war, just so a gas pipeline could be built in Afghanistan & profit US companies. It's not surprising that corporations decided to capitalize on the situation & build a pipeline once the US military invaded, but it remains a conspiracy theory that the attacks were part of a plan just to get that pipeline built. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting comparison with moscow apartment bombings

Re: accusations of the attacks being staged by the home govt. for their own popularity benefit

OF COURSE the accusations on the latter (moscow) one were FAR more accurate and less of a 'conspiracy theory' (said so so that I don't get banned on 'suspicion of promoting' wild conspiracy theories)

but still..i don't think it would do harm for wikipedia to include this bit 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:F8E5:CCBD:7266:964B (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

and if it is apparently WP:OR (which I doubt), then what/why does the statement "encyclopedia compiling ALL human knowledge" should/shall mean 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:F8E5:CCBD:7266:964B (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussing such a comparison need to exist before we can have anything to say on the matter. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change " a researcher from the French National Centre for Scientific Research published in Le Monde." to "a researcher from the French National Centre for Scientific Research published in the newspaper Le Monde.". It makes it clear that Le Monde is not a scientific journal, which I personaly thought reading it. MartinUnknown (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done --TheImaCow (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This statement (“These include the theory that high-level government officials had advance knowledge of the attacks. Government investigations and independent reviews have rejected these theories.”) should be changed because I could not find any evidence that the government were/were not involved so it is best not to even include it. Nowhere did it say these theories were rejected nor confirmed. I’m sure this has confused other people I just would like this to be a lot clearer and correct statement. Thank you for your slave work for Misplaced Pages it is greatly appreciated as you do what 99% of others would rather not. 174.234.143.10 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I could not find any evidence that the government were/were not involved

That's asking to prove a negative, which is not possible. Also, do NOT use the term slave work. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Why isn't there a section debunking the conspiracy theories like in the Moon landing conspiracy theories article? 2806:230:1036:BCED:EE2E:98FF:FEF4:9A03 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the modern preference is to debunk them in-line, rather than giving the CTs too much weight by letting them go uncontested & then having the debunking in its own section. The moon landing article is based on the older way of doing it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Edit to the "World Trade Center" Section, Combustion of Kerosene Temperatures, Dec 22, 2024

Content:

Hello! I am proposing an edit to the section that currently states:

Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the towers had collapsed due to heat melting the steel. The erroneous claim that the combustion temperature of jet fuel could not melt steel contributed to the belief among skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference. The basic claim is false, because the combustion temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) is, in fact, more than 500 °C higher than the melting point of structural steel (2093 °C vs. less than 1539 °C).

This text appears misleading, as it references the adiabatic flame temperature of jet fuel (kerosene), which assumes idealized conditions that do not exist in real-world scenarios, such as a stoichiometric mix of pure oxygen and no heat loss. These conditions are not reflective of what occurred during the events of 9/11.

Proposed Replacement Text:

""Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the towers had collapsed due to heat melting the steel. While the theoretical adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 2,093°C, this assumes perfect conditions, such as no heat loss and complete combustion in a stoichiometric mix of pure oxygen. In real-world conditions, such as burning kerosene in normal air, flame temperatures typically range from 260°C to 315°C, far below the melting point of structural steel (1,539°C) with maximum flame temperatures approaching 990°C. While these temperatures are insufficient to melt steel, they can weaken it significantly, contributing to structural failure."

Sources:

ChemEurope – Kerosene

Firefighter Insider – Is Kerosene Flammable?

Misplaced Pages - Flame

I believe this edit aligns with Misplaced Pages’s goals of providing accurate and sourced information. I welcome any feedback or alternative suggestions to improve this section. Thank you! Yaktam (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no fundamental objection to your proposed edit. My reversion yesterday was based on the informal tone of the way you had it composed the first time. This is more formal and leaves out the "of course," etc. However, it would be better to find references that specifically mention WTC, rather than relying only on basic references on combustion, since one characteristic of conspiracy theories is a tendency to claim special circumstances. And the part about weakening steel is probably the most important thing to reference, since one of these special pleadings focuses on melting rather than weakening, which happens at relatively low temperatures, removing margins of safety in a compromised structure and inducing thermal stress that is not part of the design assumptions. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I’ve revised the proposed text to include references specific to the World Trade Center (via the NIST investigation) and detailed the weakening of steel at elevated temperatures. I hope this update addresses the concerns raised:

"While the theoretical adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 2,093°C, this assumes perfect conditions, such as no heat loss and complete combustion in a stoichiometric mix of pure oxygen. In real-world conditions, such as burning kerosene in normal air, flame temperatures typically range from 260°C to 315°C. These temperatures are far below the melting point of structural steel (1,539°C). However, steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 600°C and around 90% at 980°C. This weakening, combined with the removal of fireproofing by the initial impact and prolonged exposure to fire, may have contributed to the structural failures observed during the collapse of the World Trade Center towers."

Sources:

1. ChemEurope – Kerosene
2. NIST World Trade Center Investigation - Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

I welcome any final feedback before implementing the edit. Thanks again for your time and suggestions! Yaktam (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Air Defense Standown Theory

Proposed Revision to Air Defense Standdown Theory Paragraph

The current paragraph discussing NORAD's notifications on 9/11 does not fully capture the nuanced details found in Anthony Summers' book The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden.

"The longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was some eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing – not hijacked – Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania."

Specifically, the book emphasizes that while NORAD was informed of the hijackings and had time to intercept United Flight 93, they were awaiting authorization to shoot the plane down. Furthermore, it overlooks the critical fact that the passengers of Flight 93 heroically stormed the cockpit, causing the plane to crash before it could reach its intended target.

I propose the following revision to better align with the sources:

"The longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was approximately eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA notified NORAD about United Airlines Flight 175 as it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. Similarly, NORAD was informed of the missing – but not hijacked – Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon.

Regarding United Airlines Flight 93, Major General Larry Arnold indicated that there had been time to intercept the plane. However, NORAD was awaiting authorization to shoot it down, a decision that was ultimately obviated by the extraordinary bravery of the passengers who stormed the cockpit, leading to the plane's crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania."

This revision maintains the factual timeline, incorporates Summers’ argument about the shootdown order, and adds context about the passengers' heroic actions, which are an essential part of the historical record. I believe this revised version is more accurate and comprehensive while preserving the neutrality required for the page. Feedback is welcome! Yaktam (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"they were awaiting authorization" By whom? I get that there may be a delay when the information goes through the chain of command, but in emergency situations the response can not afford many hours of deliberation. If the decision is taken two hours after any potential attack, the attack has probably already taken place and the decision has no practical effect. Dimadick (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Dimadick. I understand the concerns regarding chain of command and decision-making during emergencies. However, my intent here is not to debate those issues but to correct the current paragraph to accurately reflect the information in the source being cited. According to The Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers, NORAD did receive warning about United Flight 93 and was awaiting authorization to shoot it down. This is a key detail that the current text omits and misrepresents. My proposed revision aims to align the article with the cited source and provide a more accurate account of events. I hope this clarifies my position.

Feedback is welcome! Yaktam (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Your version is needlessly editorial (obviated by the extraordinary bravery of the passengers).

As to the rest, I'd have to look at the original source to determine whether our current version is inaccurate. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Just follow the reference link that was there before I suggested the change. The verbiage is from the book. Not my own.

Looking forward to further feedback! Yaktam (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Proposed Revision to Include Millette’s Analysis

I am proposing a revision to the paragraph under the "World Trade Center" section to include information about Dr. James R. Millette's analysis, which challenges the findings of Harrit et al. regarding the presence of thermitic material in the World Trade Center dust. While Harrit et al.'s paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Open Chemical Physics Journal), Millette’s analysis was detailed in a 2012 technical report that concluded the red/gray chips were consistent with common construction materials, specifically paint used on steel structures. This revision aims to provide a more balanced perspective by presenting both the original claims and the counterclaims, along with the publication context of both works. I believe this addition will enhance the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article.

The following paragraph:

"In the article "Active Thermotic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", which appeared in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, authors Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen's Department of Chemistry, Jeffrey Farrer of Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy, Steven E. Jones, and others state that thermite and nano-thermite composites in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings. The article contained no scientific rebuttal and the editor in chief of the publication subsequently resigned."

will be altered to:

"In the article 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,' published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, authors Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen's Department of Chemistry, Jeffrey Farrer of Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy, Steven E. Jones, and others claim to have identified thermite and nano-thermite composites in the dust and debris following the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings. However, this claim has been challenged by materials scientist Dr. James R. Millette, whose independent analysis, detailed in a technical report released in 2012, concluded that the red/gray chips examined were consistent with common construction materials, specifically a carbon steel coated with epoxy resin containing iron oxide and kaolin, used in building paint. Unlike Harrit et al.’s article, which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Millette’s report was not peer-reviewed but has been widely cited in discussions on the topic. Millette’s findings cast doubt on the thermite hypothesis, suggesting the chips were not evidence of an explosive material. The article by Harrit et al. contained no formal scientific rebuttal at the time of publication, but the editor-in-chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal later resigned, adding to the controversy surrounding the study."

Feedback is welcome!

Yaktam (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That's just a wordier version of the original. Millette not being peer-reviewed makes its inclusion dubious here, though I'd be interested to hear from others. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Subject: Improving Neutrality and Attribution in the "World Trade Center" Section

I’ve been reviewing the "World Trade Center" section of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article and noticed some opportunities to improve clarity and neutrality, while retaining the current links embedded in the text.

The paragraph,

"The plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse of the World Trade Center. Controlled demolition conspiracy theories say the collapse of the North Tower, South Tower, or of 7 World Trade Center was caused by explosives installed in the buildings in advance."

currently conflates the causes of collapse for the North and South Towers with that of 7 World Trade Center, which did not collapse due to an airplane impact. Official investigations attribute the collapse of the North and South Towers to structural damage from the plane impacts and subsequent fires, while 7 World Trade Center collapsed later due to fires ignited by debris from the North Tower. Clarifying this distinction would improve accuracy.

The paragraph also places the official explanation and conspiracy theories side by side, which might inadvertently suggest equivalence. Adding language to clarify that the latter are widely debunked by experts would help maintain a balanced perspective.

Here’s a revised version of the paragraph for reference:

"The collapse of the World Trade Center's North and South Towers was attributed by official investigations, including those conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to structural damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires. 7 World Trade Center collapsed later in the day, with investigations attributing the collapse to fires ignited by debris from the North Tower's destruction, which compromised critical structural elements. Some controlled demolition conspiracy theories, however, propose that these collapses were caused by pre-installed explosives. These claims have been widely dismissed by experts in engineering and demolition, who point to a lack of credible evidence supporting such scenarios."

I believe this revision addresses the need for greater specificity regarding Building 7 while preserving the original links and improving neutrality.

Feedback and suggestions are welcome! Yaktam (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems confused. All of the towers were supposedly blown up by explosives, according to the conspiracy theorists. So the quoted paragraph is fine as-is. And as with your previous attempts to revise content, you're just making it wordier without adding any real substance. Plus, none of this has anything to do with neutrality, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I think there might have been a misunderstanding about what I was trying to do with the revision. The original paragraph doesn’t clearly explain that Building 7 didn’t come down because of a plane. That’s a key detail that should be included. Official reports say the North and South Towers fell due to the planes and resulting fires, while Building 7 came down later because of fires caused by debris from the North Tower.

The paragraph as it stands now sort of lumps all three buildings together without making this distinction. My suggestion wasn’t about changing the meaning or overcomplicating things—it’s just about being accurate.

As for the conspiracy theories, I know they apply to all three buildings. I wasn’t trying to separate them. I was just adding some context for Building 7 since it’s often treated differently in those discussions.

Here’s a shorter version of what I proposed:

"The collapse of the World Trade Center's North and South Towers was attributed by official investigations, including those conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to structural damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires. 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed later in the day due to fires ignited by debris from the North Tower. Some conspiracy theories claim that all three buildings were brought down by pre-installed explosives, but these ideas have been widely dismissed by experts due to a lack of evidence."

Feedback is welcome! Yaktam (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Revision for the World Trade Center Section

The current paragraph in the World Trade Center section lacks references to the proponents’ theories, making it incomplete and less verifiable. Here’s the original paragraph for reference:

"Demolition theory proponents, such as Brigham Young University physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argue that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional factors weakening the structures."

This paragraph introduces key figures in the demolition theory movement but provides no references to their specific works, leaving readers unable to explore their arguments in detail. To improve the article’s quality and align with Misplaced Pages's verifiability standards, I propose the following revision:

Revised Paragraph:

"Demolition theory proponents, such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argue that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were insufficient to explain the catastrophic collapses of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. Jones, in his paper, posits that evidence of thermite reactions points to controlled demolition as the cause.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.journalof911studies.com/why-indeed-did-the-world-trade-center-buildings-completely-collapse/ |title=Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? |last=Jones |first=Steven E. |date=2006 |website=Journal of 9/11 Studies |access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref> Gage presents architectural and engineering analyses arguing that fire alone could not have caused the observed structural failures.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/32154000/Beyond_Misinformation_2015_pdf |title=Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 |last=Gage |first=Richard |date=2015 |website=Academia.edu |publisher=Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth |access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref> Hoffman disputes the official explanations, highlighting inconsistencies in the collapse dynamics.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html |title=Building a Better Mirage: NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century |last=Hoffman |first=Jim |date=2003 |website=911Research |access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref> Griffin challenges mainstream attempts to refute these theories, contending that alternative explanations better account for the evidence.<ref>{{cite book |title=Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory |last=Griffin |first=David Ray |date=2007 |publisher=Olive Branch Press |isbn=978-1-56656-686-5 |url=https://books.google.ca/books/about/Debunking_9_11_Debunking.html?id=Kzr7wAEACAAJ |access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref>"

This revised paragraph includes direct links to the Misplaced Pages pages of the proponents and citations to their works. By referencing their specific publications, this version provides a clearer and more verifiable presentation of the demolition theory perspective while maintaining neutrality.

I welcome feedback and suggestions for further refinements to ensure this addition aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.

Yaktam (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class September 11, 2001 articles
• Low-importance September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press