From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Take a look at this[edit]

I dont care about conspiracies, but there are very strong arguments in this video favoring the controlled demolition theory.

Individual jets of air rushing through windows and flying fabric[edit]

Without diving into sloppy explanations and rebuttals in the article, there are some details left unexplained, which I consider important. For example, there are a few zoomed-in videos where you can clearly see a jet of air and smoke rushing through the window, taking a black rag-like object with it. Such as this one:

This is very similar to geotextile fabric used by demolition crews to cover the explosive charges (i.e. wrap it around a column or cover a wall) in order to contain the flying explosive debris and shrapnel. If you've seen any building demolition process, you would also see flying black rags carried by the expanding gases.

I'd rather not say what I think about the "exploding water tanks and soda-cans because of jet fuel heat" theory mentioned in the article, but truth be told, individual jets of smoke below the burning zone, before the towers begin to collapse, are not explained anywhere in the article, so I think the article deserves an update. Please take everything in account, and especially the fact that this happened two stories below fire and smoke. Theinsider (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Report Thing[edit]

What do you think?— Unsigned, by: The Unwritten / talk / contribs

Took one glance at the cover and saw that noted pseudoscientist Steven JonesWikipedia's W.svg is a lead author (the speciality of whom is fusion and solar energy, not structural physics) alongside two old engineers and a guy with a degree in public policy who writes truther books.
Regarding the site "", they allow anyone to self-publish material via their site. They have a guide for doing so, which states;

Reviewing procedure
All articles are read by members of the Editorial Board
who may recommend clarifications, changes, etc.
Comments are occasionally sought elsewhere. Papers will
be sub-edited for obvious problems of language (UK English)

but we do not rewrite.
This means that the material published via them is not peer-reviewed in any meaningful way whatsoever. Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one. Even Europhysics News also state clearly that, quote: "Most contributors to Europhysics News are volunteers...". That's, most contributors to the magazine. As in; the people who provide the content, like for the "report thingy" you just linked.
And as sciencey as this might look when accessed via Google Scholar, the fact is that Europhysics News publishes all sorts of random stuff via the exact same format. Examples include overt opinion pieces and even letters to the editor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You wrote, "Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one," as if to suggest that the EPS doesn't endorse what they publish. But I guess you missed that "Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences." [emph. added] Klortho (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't show up in the "recognized journals" because it's not a primary-research journal; it is a magazine. That's why they publish "all sorts of random stuff"; but that does not mean that the content hasn't been reviewed and vetted for scientific merit. The editorial board most certainly does review content. On the other hand, they explicitly state that the content they select is intended to provide a "balanced overview of the scientific and organizational aspects of physics and related disciplines".
In other words, they are open to ideas that perhaps challenge the mainstream accepted dogma.
In other words, they support free exchange of ideas.
In other words, their minds are open.
That's too much to ask from a site called "RationalWiki", though. Klortho (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a question for you, @Reverend Black Percy:: Did you even read any of it? It's well sourced, and many of the points the authors make are devastating to the official story, and to the existing write-up on this page. Klortho (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the disclaimer at the start which says "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors." Not exactly a full endorsement by the editorial staff. Annquin (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ping:Annquin: Absolutely, that's endorsement enough for it to be included as a source in this article, and for its assertions to be considered credible. If those editors find it "sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication", why don't you consider it sufficiently technical and interesting to read? Klortho (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Military planes theories[edit]

I've heard it bandied around that the 9/11 planes were military, not civilian. The first piece of "evidence" is the photographs, which purportedly show anomalous markings or components. I believe this was sufficiently debunked in the Popular Mechanics article. The second is the claim that a Rolls-Royce spokesman said that a small engine found in the Pentagon wreckage did not belong to the company (see here at 00:18:35 for a sample quote). Should the article be edited to reflect these claims and their rebuttals? (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure — any crank claims that can be refuted with good sources belong in the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Plane evaporated?[edit]

Okay, so few days ago I saw Zeitgeist. It talks about how no plane was found in one of the building and the officials explained it away saying that it "evaporated". The movie also says that officials were able to find "DNA" of the terrorist pilots and able to identify them. "Plane evaporated but the pilot didn't?". Is this true? Why isn't this already covered in this article.

NOTE: I am not a conspiracy theories. I just mean to imply that this article is "incomplete". P.S: Why are there so many conspiracy theories in US. I have never heard one from other countries. Rational1 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This website has actual interviews with Pentagon witnesses and proves the witnesses describe a flight path that is not consistent with the official story.[edit]

Here is a link directly to the interviews:

Here's a link to their video:

This is independent, verifiable research that shows every single Pentaqon witness describes the plane traveling in a path that is not consistent with the official story - the official story says light poles were knocked down as a result of the plane, but the path that all witness describe is not in the path of those light poles. The exact path of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon has been released by the government, but that path does not match up with any witnesses.

Here's an extremely detailed post with info on nearly every Pentagon witness.

Here's a debunking of attempted debunking of the CIT claims.

This is verifiable evidence of a coverup at the Pentagon. I don't know how to do wiki write-ups, but it seems like the part of the article on flight 77 should be changed. (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)