Talk:September 11 attacks

"911 conspiracy theory lacks expert support"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see here a few experts.. So this statement by default is false.. right? Or is my logic wrong? Where's the catch?

Maybe it could be rephrased from

9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

to

9/11 conspiracy theories supported by some expert scientists and engineers have become social phenomena, despite lack of backing from majority of expert scientists, engineers, and historians who support the mainstream view.

One is not an expert only if they support mainstream view.. One is an expert.. and they may support or not the mainstream view. Right? Or wrong? Is someone an expert by the view they have on a particular issue, or are they experts by their skills regardless on the judgment on a particular issue?

After all, both defense and prosecutor can bring their experts on court to argue opposing views.. I've seen this so many times on TV shows..

BTW, reference [2] does not even support above statement!

178.148.5.47 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the supporters of conspiracy theories are experts in the relevant fields: they are all opining outside of their fields of expertise, or they possess no more than the standard qualification needed to legally practice in their field with no specialized or advanced qualification beyond basic skills. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, still less a TV court, and neutral voice doesn't mean giving equal weight to all views. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view (throughout the encyclopedia) and treats fringe views accordingly. See WP:FRINGE. The reference supports the mainstream-vs-fringe statement, it most definitely doesn't contain a statement Truthers are experts Acroterion (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What is your qualification? Are you an expert in those fields? It appears some of the people from the list have expertise in relevant fields. So I am asking myself why your opinion that they are not experts in relevant fields would be more accurate than my opinion that they are experts in those fields? WP:NPOV states minority view should be not given equal weight, but as the statement above says, conspiracy view is a social phenomena, far from minority view, and should be given more weight than currently is.. |Mainstream is current thought that is widespread. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so many links I keep finding just by searching... for example, look what happens to expert scientists when they publicly state non-mainstream views. no wonder many are scared to say what they think.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I would ask some editors to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Closing_discussions 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please login to your main account. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

? do I have it? didn't know that.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

citation not supporting statement.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement and reference provided in above section. I request correction of above statement in accordance with the source. thank you 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Only after they submit proof that is published in a peer reviewed scholarly venue.--MONGO 16:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

statement 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians. from the article is not supported by its source.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We should probably remove the "despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers and historians"...but you're asking us to prove a negative, a common CT argument. The CT crowd has never gotten their nonsense printed in an appropriate peer reviewed venue. It's always wacky websites or some link to a goofy "conference".--MONGO 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest IP:178.148.5.47 post their conspiracy theories on one of the many crazy sites on the internet. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that deals in properly sourced facts and not ideas from second rate "experts".....David J Johnson (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is 'amusing' and shows your blindness prevents you from comprehending my objection posted above. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree the citation doesn't fully support the statement as it stands. Here are a couple of quotes from the article that could support a statement about how there is a lack of evidence for the conspiracy theories compared to the widely-accepted sequence of events: Amid so much evidence to the contrary, and so much visible heartbreak from victims' family members probably made worse by wallowing in conspiracy theories, why believe in them? and The widely-accepted (and here greatly summarized) account of what led up to and happened on 9/11 is as follows (emphasis mine). clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)