Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Lying to the 9/11 Commission

I've removed this[1] from the article for the following two reasons:

• First, it's a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn't be using the term 'lying' in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, I know that the person who wrote the Toronto Globe and Mail article used those words. But we shouldn't do that here. Yes, it can probably be rephrased and possibly fixed, but there's a second issue which makes the BLP concerns moot.
• I haven't read the book but after reading the cited source, Farmer's thesis doesn't seem to have anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. Yes, there's an offhand reference to conspiracy theories towards the end of the cited source. But if you look at that carefully, the Toronto Globe and Mail article is disagreeing with Farmer saying that he goes too far, and compares his Farmer's methodology with the conspiracy theorist's methodology. Big difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back. I don't see how it's a BLP violation or how it's in Wikipedias voice when it specifically attributes what is said to the source. I do agree though, that the cited source should be Farmers book and not an article about it. I think this is notable and, ironically, could be the one section of this article that isn't completely nutjob. (No offense intended to the nutjobs...:) Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please follow WP:BRD? It was boldly added it and I reverted it. We should discuss it on the talk page before adding back to the article.
• It's a WP:BLP violation because we are accusing a living person of lying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Please do not do this again.
• Second, neither Farmer's book nor the cited news article seem to have anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. We seemed to have found a source about Farmer's book which compared Farmer's methodology to that the methodology of a conspiracy theorist (which one they do not say) and seem to have concluded that it has something to with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The news article also compare's Farmer's methodology to Columbo. But that doesn't mean Farmer's book is about Columbo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See What bold, reverse, diuscuss, is NOT.. Also this. And third, Farmers book ( at least the parts quoted) most certainly are about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not the standard fare for 911 conspiracy theories, crazy nuts with whacko theories, but it's a conspiracy theory in that he more than strongly suggests that Bush lied. And the source is not some nobody but was senior council to the 911 Commission--that's notable! AND a WP:RS if there ever was one. This is a no-brainer. This article is about 911 Conspiracy Theories and this may be the one and only one that has some real credibility to it. The BLP argument is nonsensical--read WP:BLP. It's sourced to a reliable (very reliable) source and is characterized as his words, not Wikipedias. And it CLEARLY deserves space in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not even a close call. Mystylplx (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially this was added by one editor. Reverted by you. Then re-reverted by me. This isn't even really covered by WP:BRD. But the BLP claim is nonsensical. BLP doesn't say we can't publish any information that might be controversial period--it says we don't publish it unless there's a reliable source. And again--Senior Council to the 911 Commission John Farmer, Jr.. Mystylplx (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR)

This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. It accuses a living person of lying. Unless there is actually a relevant court ruling to that effect, (see Bill Clinton), it's controversial. That, therefore, requires a reliable source. Farmer, himself, and his source, are not reliable for that purpose; it has to be from a reliable publisher. I see no evidence of that, here, although it might be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:

• LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – That key individuals within the government had foreknowledge and let them happen anymay
• MIHOP ("Make/Made it happen on purpose") - That key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out.

We seem to inventing a third category of CT that the government tried to cover up its incompetence after the fact. This is not a conspiracy theory. Legitimate criticism of the US governemt regarding 9/11 doesn't belong in this article. It should go in some other article. In my absense, it appears that somehow the article shifted focus to include any criticism - whether conspiracy theory or not. I see that there's now a section for "Non LIHOP/MIHOP". I doubt if such a thing even exists. It should probably be deleted. Going to bed now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin With all due respect I think you're just making stuff up. I've read and re-read wp:blp and I see nothing in there about requiring a court order. Farmer is certainly a reliable source.

@A Quest For Knowledge, I see what you're saying and you might have a point, but I do think a conspiracy to cover up incompetence is still a 911 conspiracy--it's just not the standard whacko conspiracy theory that one normally thinks of when using the phrase "911 conspiracy theory." Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx: There's a world of difference between wacko conspiracy theories and real conspiracies. Watergate was a real conspiracy. Aliens landing at Roswell is not. We shouldn't lump the two together. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. This article is only about the crazy stuff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's where I disagree, or at least I don't think it's necessary that this article be "only about the crazy stuff." This is similar to your LIHOP-- just without claiming that it was "on purpose." The section could even be expanded a bit with this from CBS news and plenty of other sources that go into what the Bush administration knew and what was (and was not) done about it. It seems to me this article is the appropriate place for stuff like that as I doubt it's feasible to start a new article titled Non-whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't criticism of the 911 commission... Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I do see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate where it would be appropriate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer. The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart. We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word. But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did. Does anyone have access to the book? Does Farmer actually use this word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie. I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying. We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really confused on where you're coming from on this. First of all "if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS"??? It's the New York Times of Canada. Second, I don't think anyone wants to remove the "Farmer wrote" clause. The whole section is on what he wrote. Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's already this, this, and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See The Dreyfus Affair and MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

YouTube video in Pentagon section

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

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

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

Susan Lindauer shoot down

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

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

"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?

How is this POV? "Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire, raising the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties and democracy." Refs: http://www.alternet.org/rights/78182/?page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-weimar-and-washington/ Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=468806942&oldid=468805399 Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First line of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Reichstag fire comparison is a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need a source connecting this to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This is A Quest For Knowledge on a public computer. I'm not logging into a computer that might not be secure.

The content you added has several problems:

1. The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
2. The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.

But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.

But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You only add material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes against CTs. This is called tenditious editing and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. 67.107.55.130 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml however it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate..." Okay; what's the reliable source that the stuff about the Reichstag fire is an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All three of the cited references compare the two. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do a web search on "9/11 Reichstag fire" you'll see all kinds of primary source material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the references cited appear to mention conspiracy theories. No doubt there are primary sources - Peter Dale Scott, and others - that say 9/11 was just like the Reichstag fire. This article is (is supposed to be) about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about "what really happened" on September 11th. What we need are good reliable secondary sources that say comparisons to the Reichstag fire are an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German Protestors Marked 9/11 by Denouncing "Inside Job," "Reichstag Fire" "The '9/11 = the Reichstag fire' equation has long been a preferred trope of Germany’s homegrown brand of 'trutherism'". There are more than 100,000 sources claiming the link is significant. This WP article is about the conspiracy theories and care should be taken not to limit it to what the mainstream media choose to publish. Wayne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press" Exactly! You're giving more weight to something that is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not 911 conspiracy theories in the mainstream media. Do we delete the incontinence article because the mainstream media rarely discusses the topic? You are cherry picking WP:UNDUE. Quote: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." UNDUE is a guideline intended to avoid giving undue weight to a belief, not to avoid acknowledging the existence of that belief. Wayne (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should be deleted. Nobody is saying these conspiracy theories don't exist. 9/11 conspiracy theories are already covered in-depth in this article. Here's the thing: WP:NPOV applies to all articles, even articles on fringe theories. Yes, we should explain the fringe viewpoint, but we also need to explain the majority viewpoint. One of the problems with Ghostofnemo's edits is that they only present the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories". A fringe argument would be that shape-shifting aliens were responsible. Comparing the 9/11 attacks to the Reichstag fire is not a fringe theory for the topic of this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This topic is already a fringe topic. We stick to the notable conspiracy theories, not to every theory postulated. The 9/11=Reichstag Fire angle is the fringe of the fringe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with including the comparison if there's a good source for it. And frankly, I think that Zeitgeist is a notable source for such a claim (assuming the comparison was made in the film.) We're dealing with a conspiracy theory, and a movie which is about the most prominent conspiracy theory "documentary" in history. If it makes such a claim, it's notable for purposes of the 9/11 CT.

Please don't mistake my defense of the inclusion with my support of the theory. I give as much credence to the 9/11 CTs as I do to the moon landing hoax claims, or the belief that Jewish space aliens are controlling the global economy through RFID chips implanted in bicycle accessories. But, the fact is, Zeitgeist is a NOTEABLE source (as opposed to reliable...of course it's not "reliable," in the sense that it's 2 hours of nonsense, but that's besides the point). If there was a scholarly, objective article written by Michael Shermer noting that Zeitgeist made this claim, we would all agree it's a reliable source, right? Well, do we really need a third party pointing out that the film made this claim to make it notable? (To be clear, I don't specifically recall whether Zeitgeist made this claim; but, if it did, I would say it may deserve mention in this article.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist's notability is questionable, and it's certainly not a reliable source for this. Especially if it's just a passing mention. What we need are third-party reliable sources that discuss this Reichstag Fire comparison, before including it. And frankly, I'm just not seeing them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side-note, calling Zeitgeist "the most prominent conspiracy theory 'documentary' in history" is pretty silly. Any number of Kennedy assassination & moon hoax documentaries would like a word with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that was a bit hyperbolic. However, it's unquestionably notable. You've got discussions about the movie in The New York Times, Skeptic magazine, Scientific America, Skeptoid, Slate, and The American Spectator. In any case, if the Reichstag comparison is only mentioned in passing, I agree it's insufficient to use it as the sole source for including it in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember watching the movie years ago and the Reichstag being mentioned as a comparison. From my recollection, the source I provided lays out basically what was said in the movie. The reference to "homeland security" is something that particularly sticks out in my mind as having been in the movie.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quest, Devil's Advocate has found a reliable source sourcing this claim. I just don't see any legitimate reason to remove it. It doesn't really matter how preposterous the claim is (seriously, if we refused to deal with preposterous claims, this page simply wouldn't exist;) he's got a reliable source making the claim, in addition to a notable "documentary" mentioning the same. I think it deserves mention in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because something can be verified doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in an article. All policies have to be considered, especially WP:NPOV. The problem with this edit is undue weight. The fact is that this is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. Even Ghostofnemo concedes this: "We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press"[2] A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[3] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits (not all of which are reliable sources).[4] When literally 99.9% of sources don't think this is significant enough to report on, it probably isn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Reps_Cantor_Wamp_want_reprimand_for_Rep_Ellison.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/german-protestors-marked-911-denouncing-inside-job-reichstag-fireJoelWhy (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two of those don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the third (Weekly Standard) is the single source already mentioned. 9/11 conspiracy theories are exactly and only what the reliable sources say they are. We are not supposed to sift through conspiracist literature to synthesize our own in-house list of the elements of the theories, and then find news reports that mention those elements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough.JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I put up an article from the Nation, a prominent news magazine, that spends two paragraphs laying out this comparison and uses it as a segue into broader discussion on the 9-11 conspiracy theories. This is much more attention than that given to the Maine, Tonkin, and Mukden comparisons among others. It is not mentioned as much as Northwoods or Pearl Harbor, but it is certainly mentioned significantly. On AQFK's talk page I provided a list of cases where it is mentioned (one was from AQFK's search for articles). While most of the mentions were trivial by themselves, the fact that it is so regularly repeated in the sources even as others are not suggests it is recognized by reliable sources as a more significant comparison.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AQFK, stop distorting what Nemo said like you did at DRN. He was clearly saying the 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves are rarely discussed. You continue to misrepresent his comment as referring to this specific material, which is simply untrue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DA: So, in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT, you're claiming that GoN was actually talking about notability - something absolutely nobody else was talking about? Yeah, that makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nemo can tell you himself that you are wrong if he likes, but I think it is obvious from the context that he was saying the 9-11 conspiracy theories are rarely discussed at all and so mentioning WP:UNDUE to leave out a specific claim about those theories that does get a significant mention in reliable sources is misusing the policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line

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

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

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

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

Looks like a good delete. Our job here is to try to present a neutral article. The change only contains the CT's POV. There appears to be no attempt to explain any other POV but the CT's. That's not what neutrality is at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede no longer explains majority viewpoint

I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions:

• Febuary 2011
• March 2010
• November 13, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Lede before reorganization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.

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

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

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

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

ZDF Online Poll

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

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

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

Incredible Lie

The article says " One allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack " This is a completely lie, and pretty stupid. The real allegation said that not a single Israeli died, which was probably true (I dont know). NY have 1000s of jews. That zone, also. Who knows that not a singe jew had died ? Add the Pentagon, the other plane, and for sure jews had died. The real allegation was that not a single Israeli died. Keep that not a single jew died, in this article, is a conspiracy theorie, itself - and propaganda. Replace it , and make it clear the response. Thanks and dont delete this - Paulsefa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.57.149 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 

Read the Snopes.com article addressing this. Notice how one of the chain e-mails from 2001 states "It has been confirmed by the US government and the FBI that at the time of the accident, there were 4000 Jews who MIRACULOUSLY never came to their work at the World Trade Center building at the time of the accident. This means Jews knew and were prewarned..." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.aspJoelWhy (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are not denialism

I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust denial, in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you didn't notice, the 'criticism' section of this article says virtually nothing about criticizing the claims that 9/11 truthers make. So what if Popular Mechanics accepts the official story? Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not.

I think criticism of the official story of September 11 and skepticism of Bin Laden's involvement is not denialism, but true skepticism in action. Not just blind defence of the establishment.

Thank you for reading this.

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

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

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

I do think 911 conspiracy theories are roughly equivalent to those others. They all attempt to deny the reality of something that happened, or assert the reality of something that didn't happen. They all have complicated rationales that don't hold up under scrutiny. They all cherry-pick evidence and make false claims. The main point is that none of them are accepted among reliable sources, and what we do here is report on what those reliable sources say. Mystylplx (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call judgment categories. Abootmoose (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is it that their opinions criticizing the official theory are treated with such skepticism yet their opinions about what their theories would require are given such weight? I look at the NIST report that says a hundred pounds of regular thermite might be sufficient to bring down a building column. As to the polls I am talking about, the ones I looked at were here on Wikipedia. Most reliable sources mention this idea of a government aiding the attacks in the context of a foreign power like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some alliance of them and other Muslim states friendly to the U.S. It isn't quite as common to mention the possibility of the U.S. being an active participant without going into the controlled demolition stuff, though there are certainly plenty of major sources alleging a cover-up of the connection to U.S. allies. All the same, these are generally regarded as conspiracy theories just like the claims of the Loose Change crowd, yet there is nothing pseudoscientific or denialist about them. I could get into a very long WP:NOTFORUM discussion about this, but the point is that there are many prominent MIHOP conspiracy theories discussed significantly in independent reliable sources that have nothing to do with remote-controlled airliners or nano-thermite so using the latter to impugn the former is inappropriate, even if the latter were pseudo-scientific in nature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. . . . By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. ”

Given the prejudicial nature of terms like pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and denialism there should be reliable sources clearly establishing this as a "defining characteristic" of the theories per WP:CAT. Only denialism has any notable mentions that I can find, though mostly in "skeptic" literature so that does not take away from the way the category skews the article. Like I said, the regular CT categories (not the ones about Jews) and fringe category are acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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