Talk:Debunking 9/11 Myths

September 2006

Alex and Sheen is mentioned at the 50th minute of the podcast. --Striver 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't a place to argue truth claims, it's about a book. That there is criticism should be noted, the source of the criticsm as well, but the arguments against? Save it for another page.

Don't you think that this page should include a general overview of the book? I haven't read the book personally, but I think the titles says it debunks like 20 myths? I'm talking like a blonde now, don't u think? No, seriously. I think someone should list them.

Mucho Gracias...

the four tilde thing didn't work the first time

Sacrublood Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to mention this, so I'm doing so at nearly the top of the Discussion section. This Looks Good People... But There's 278 References For The 911 Attacks Page Here On (Wikipedia) Thereof, you people who organized this, could make it (MUCH BETTER) There's plenty of Information out there, to do a better job then this. Theorists look at this, and see 10 References, and think this is proof, without even taking the incentive to investigate anything further.

Maybe I'll do it... but if I do, I'll have to DL the whole thing. It's the easiest way for me, to work with it inside of (FrontPage2003). If I decide to do it, be looking for Huge Updates. Linking other (Wikipedia) pages, as far as I know, is allowed. TY. Again, if I feel like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fievelmousekewitz1970 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Removed the entire section. While the NYTimes article discusses certification, it does not establish the WTC construction was indeed certified to those standards prior to 9/11. Morever, it does not (as far as can be seen from the NYTimes abstract) establish the issue of fireproofing integrity on 9/11. Fine Underwriters Laboratories did the testing for the NIST after 9/11; there needs to be solid evidence they did it prior to 9/11; and that ASTM E119 was applicable to real world conditions after commercial jetliners crashed into the towers; and their sprayed on fireproofing withstood planes crashes at full speed. The previous references provided do not address these issues. What they seem to say is, ASTM E119 in ideal conditions should have withstood the fires, assuming intact fireproofing. This cannot be assumed on 9/11. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

70 Researchers:

This is a direct citation from Popular Mechanics's website and can be found at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

"To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military."

It clearly states that Popular Mechanics contacted only more than 70 professionals, and not the aforestated over 300 experts.

Therefore, I made the appropriate changes. I did not know how to change the references.

300 Researchers

The website you were looking at with only 70 researchers was how many they used for the original article. For the book, they consulted 300 researchers. They are listed at Appendix A of the book, at pages 109-112. Anyone can go into a bookstore and verify this, I happen to own a copy of the book.

Therefore, I undid the "70 researchers" citation.

Attempts by user: "Knarly" to insert references to conspiracy theorist book

I have undone another attempt by user "Knarly" to add (previously deleted) references to a pro-conspiracy theorist book. A review of this user's edits indicate at this point a singular interest in promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories, and has continued to add to this article references to a book promoting such theories. As those prior edits have been deleted, I have undone the addition of more references just now.

User: "Knarly" has a long history with this page -- repeated attempts to add discussion of the conspiracy theorist book (so much so that his edits actually outnumbered and overtook discussion of the subject of this article), and at least one attempt to flag this entire page for deletion, once his edits were undone.

149.101.1.118 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have introduced a reference to Debunking 9/11 Debunking, which contains a large chapter debunking this book. Actually, I haven't read either, but I note the the above, anonymous, user is engaged in CENSORSHIP to repress what he calls "pro-conspiracy theorist book[s]", although the book referenced in this article claims to put such theories to rest.

At this point in time, I have been informed that the previous article Debunking 9/11 Debunking has been CENSORED (deleted) in favor of a link to Dr. Steven Jones. Therefore, I have also added a link to Dr. Steven Jones to this article. I have also added information concerning the DVD of the History Channel program, which will become available for purchase in September. Hopefully it will come without all the commercials.

CENSORSHIP is not within the scope of the ideals of Wikipedia, particularly when only fifty percent of the American people currently believe the "Official Conspiracy Theory." Less than ten percent of the Pakistani people believe Muslims did 9/11.

Wowest 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's time for a tinfoil hat invasion? Many muslims don't believe their fellow believers did it because they were sold conspiracy theories about jews. And an astonishing amount of Americans believe in "Young Earth Creationism." If you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you're simply clouding political beliefs above facts, and continue to ignore physics (as well as your own eyes). By "moving the goalposts" (i.e., allowing 1 theory to be debunked, turning to another, and then another after THAT one is debunked) you simply are allowing ideology over fact. Have fun vandalizing the article, and trying to steer people away from logic.

72.75.54.129 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very angry (as well as anonymous). It's "vandalism" if I add material, in the interest of fairness and balance, but not vandalism if someone deletes material for political reasons?

Curious that you would accuse a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement of "ignor[ing] physics (as well as your own eyes)." I used to be a True Believer of the news releases from the Bush regime that network newsreaders read over the evening news. Then, by accident, I stumbled across physics911.net. Alternative viewpoints, there, made it suddenly clear to me that I only believed what the government told me because nobody suggested anything else. Listening to the network news does not make you a witness. Studying ALL the images, preserved on the internet, makes you more of a witness.

On September 1, 1939, German troops rolled into Poland. "Operation Himmler," a series of staged, false flag events during the previous month, had all the soldiers convinced that they were defending their homeland from Polish terrorism. Look up the Gleiwitz incident.

Wowest 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Source for the History Channel documentary that referenced the book

The link is here:

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=240087

I'm not sure how to add it in as a footnote to the new addition, but I thought I'd place the link here so someone more Wiki-adept can do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.118 (talk) 20:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful that will be to anyone, but if you want to BUY the program, due to ship September 13, 2007, look here:

http://store.aetv.com/html/search/searchindex.jhtml?search=9%2F11+conspiracy&itemType=All&x=14&y=6&key=%7C9/11%20conspiracy%7C&_requestid=20895

Wowest 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism corrected.

The reference to Debunking 9/11 Debunking was again deleted by an unknown vandal, and has been restored.

Wowest 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoration currently hidden. CTL+f will verify. Perhaps this is a ref to Steven Jones?

Fair use rationale for File:Debunking 911 Myths.jpg

File:Debunking 911 Myths.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Chertoff section

Hopefully it is not undue, but I think it is important to mention this. One of the main arguments used against this book is that "Benjamin Chertoff is the couson/son/brother of Michael Chertoff". There is no basis for it, and we have reliable sources both establishing this claim and refuting it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for adding the {{cn}} without reading the full article. You're absolutely correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Debunking 9/11 Myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Debunking 9/11 Myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228104436/http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html to http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608192307/http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/technology/military_law/4199607.html?page=1 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4199607.html?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210033600/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024062122/http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/science/research/4199607.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228104436/http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html to http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)