Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

One-sided reporting[edit]

As a fervent reader of Rationalwiki, I was completely astonished by this one-sided and unobjective description of the 9/11-events. Let me include this short note, at least in the Talk-Page, for anyone passing by and wondering how an internet wiki, claiming to be rational, completely misses its own standards, and blindly adopts the official version of the events. Of all positions one can have about 9/11, the article seems to portray only two extremes. The first extreme being a high praise of the official NIST-report (what this article is in fact) and the second extreme being some crazy zionist-space-beam-bush-did-it nonsense. Can't there be a third, moderate, critical and healthy in-between position? This should be possible. The article starting with Al-Qaeda made entirely responsible for the attacks, is a conspiracy theory itself, as there are no-proofs that it was Al-Qaeda at all. So, speaking about the responsibility of the attacks, it's possible to say that the US-Government accuses Ben Laden, and that, however, proofs are still awaited. Indeed, the factual situation is pointing it couldn't have been him, or at least, him alone. The role of the US Government is at least debatable. A lot of the so-called truther claims are being discussed and countered with rebuttals full of logical fallacies, and only weak claims are being discussed, not the strong ones. One day, in 20 years, in 50 years or even in 100 years, we will know the truth. Internet archaeologists will dig this article out and wonder why this was one the Rationalwiki. (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Anir

First, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Second, cite your sources. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
First, that drinking game of yours may explain why this article seems to be written by not-really-sober users. I think I supported my claim with enough explanations. This article needs to be rewritten.
Second, cite your sources. Which source does say that the 19 Hijackers are responsible for the attacks? Cite your sources. The 9/11 commission report? Come on! We should write it directly in the article: The US-Government accuses some people with no further proof. There isn't even a single footage of any of the Hijackers boarding any of the planes.
Third. One thing that blew my mind. Read the following sentence from the 2nd paragraph of the introduction.
"While the international community condemned the attacks, some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East viewed them as part of a legitimate jihad"
Well, while I don't have any problems with the sentence itself, I can't understand at all the source used ==> Some Palestinians celebrated the attack in refugee camps in Lebanon. Images of celebration from the BBC. Sorry what? I suggest we use the following source, it's much better. Anir (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
First, your joke was amusing. But explanations are not the same as citations. If I were to write a paper on the Thirty Years' War and turn it into my professor, and it contained explanations for why it happened the way it did but no citations, I would not be surprised if I got an F on the paper. Someone can explain anything with anything else. But unless those explanations have some demonstrated basis in reality, such as citations, then the explanations are moot.
Second, we do cite our sources. The 9-11 Commission report is reliable. And since you ask for citations, here they are:
Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before And After The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, 2001 Volume I and Volume II, and the testimony of FBI Assistant Director Dale L. Watson before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They're both through the Wayback Machine, sorry.
And third, I am not entirely sure what your complaint is. If you feel that source is better, then change it. Many other RWians might be loath to use a Breitbart article, but meh. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I told myself since this article is full of jokes, why not adding my own jokes to it. Breitbart was meant to be joke as well.
Let's focus entirely on that claim of yours: The 9-11 Commission report is reliable.
I heard some truthers saying that there isn't even one mention of the collapse of WTC7. That's why they completely dismiss it. I wouldn't go as far as dismissing it. Let's agree that the 9-11 Commission forgot to mention it. On the other side, this article completely presents the 9-11 Commission report as absolutely unquestionable. It's the truth and anyone saying something else may also like Alex-Jones-Videos. Some strong straw man there.
I will add one little part to the article, if you don't like it we can discuss it of course.
Anir (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename to 9-11[edit]

If the name is 9/11 it fucks up the archive template. Archives exist (see Talk:9/11/Archive1) but the template thinsk this is an archive page bacause it's a subpag The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. CowHouse (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with this. Move it to 9-11 and leave 9/11 as a redirect. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We've been DEBUNKED[edit]

How can we not realize that Israel did 9/11? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 06:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure... Everyone knows the devil did it, obviously. Comrade GC (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerns with this page[edit]

Hello everyone, I just joined as I was quite disappointed by the flaccid arguments made on this page. (No, I'm not a 'truther' - before we go any further ;) ) But I think this is a very important and emotive topic which behoves respectable websites like Rational Wiki to have some quality content in here.

For a start, the jokey sneers are appalling. How on earth would you expect anyone to take this page seriously when it's full of snide remarks? Do you seek to aspire to the truth, or do you just want to insult truthers? (Which helps precisely no-one) This is anything but rational behaviour and does not fit well with the ethos of the site in my opinion.

I joined because I am considering contributing to this page to try and help clean it up and restore some rational balance to it. But since I'm new here, I am wondering if any such edits or trying to restore some rationale to the page will be welcomed, or will I be wasting my time?

For reference to my own personal position on 911, you can consult my blog article if you wish. Freeworlder (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? and some of the pages in Help:Contents before making changes. This will help you understand the ethos of the site, which isn't exactly described by the word "respectable".
Regardless of the above, if there are specific issues you feel the article doesn't cover well, things it could explain more clearly, arguments it ignores, etc, please post on this talk page. --Gospatric (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The thing with us is we have the tone of snarky everywhere, see the RW:SPOV section specifically. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
OK thanks for the information guys. That article was news to me and I understand better what you're trying to do now, but it's probably not for me. Having said that, I do wish there was a more NPOV resource for this and other thorny topics. I would love to see a more Snopes-like bullshit de-bunk site - as in terse, unequivocal and well-respected. It's sorely needed! I wish you luck with this but the humour / attitude thing won't really work for me. Freeworlder (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Try these pants on.Wikipedia Zero (talk - contributions) 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reichstagsbrand as an example[edit]

I've removed said example. It is NOT historical consensus that the "communist dissident" (which he indeed was) did in fact set the fire. Marinus van der Lubbe was acquitted in 1980 by the Landgericht Berlin, in December 2007 the Bundesanwaltschaft reaffirmed again that the judgement was based on national socialist injustice (I just noticed that I mixed up the two dates in the edit log, my bad.) -6E23 (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This page[edit]

Should this not be an 'active' rather than an 'archived' talk page (or is it some glitch in the archiving process - or 'something else entirely?). Anna Livia (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My gut feeling tells me the 9/11 title is screwing up the formatting for pibot. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If something goes wrong on a website assume 'two bits of computer program negatively interacting' (the inherent animosity of inanimate objects as applied to computers) and/or someone mistyping and similar, and as more likely than malicious activity (human 'the aliens' or the computer-sentients (who are more likely to be looking at images of other 'decorative computers' anyway)). Anna Livia (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Irrational Wiki[edit]

I cannot take this web site seriously. It is about as rational as the flat earth society, like a kind of inverted mirror site: equally crazy. While one should be wary of conspiracy theorists who see a conspiracy in everything, this web site repeatedly tries to assert that nobody ever conspired to do anything ever. This article about 911 is only one of many which appear to be deliberately dishonest/unbalanced. No rational or intelligent person finds the official version of events to be even close to 100% convincing. There is very little evidence for the conspiracy theory put forward by the US government and plenty of evidence for alternative theories. A rational and honest person would admit this. The authors of this article don't even appear to realize that that is what the official narrative is: a conspiracy theory. It is a form of madness to irrationally assume an extreme position in the face of contradictory evidence. People tend to believe what they want to believe and are particularly gullible when brainwashed with patriotism and driven by ego. There is a difference between being smart and being a smart alec. The condescending tone and extreme naivety of the content here leaves rational wiki with precisely zero credibility in my opinion. There is nothing to see here. (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's pretend a bunch of lazy conspiracy nuts who have done jack shit aside from ranting into cameras and microphones might maybe have the same credibility as PH.D toting scientists and experienced investigators. Because apparently one side who has yet to meet a burden of proof cannot simply be wrong. Dumbass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
"this web site repeatedly tries to assert that nobody ever conspired to do anything ever". The article does acknowledge that al-Qaeda members conspired, if you bothered to actually read it. "The authors of this article don't even appear to realize that that is what the official narrative is: a conspiracy theory." What's your point? It is clear that a group of people conspired to commit the attacks. In fact, it's one of the few things that truthers and everyone else can agree with.
If there's "plenty of evidence for alternative theories" then feel free to present the evidence. CowHouse (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh good, an excuse to post this:"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! --Logos (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucracy and 9/11[edit]

There would have to be a lot of planning behind what became known as 9/11 - more so if officialdom was involved (and wished to be distanced from the event). Therefore, even if it was referred to in print merely as 'That Project' or some anodyne name, there would be traces in the official records - and what with several changes of political party in office, persons 'investigating' and 'would-be rising politicians looking for something to give them namedrop status' etc at least some traces would have surfaced by now.

And, given how slow and (not) thorough officialdom, jobsworths, nimbyism and red tape can be - 'That Project' would still be working its way through the system. Anna Livia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please check out these articles[edit]

Hi everyone, I have come across this new website that has detailed information about 9/11. Before you call me a crank, can you please take your time and and read the follow articles from ISGP's 9/11 Study Center: You may come across a few mistakes, but that doesn't mean the overall picture is incorrect. It would be nice if you could incorporate the website's arguments into this article. (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WTC 7 Evacuation Order[edit]

Years ago on some documentary - probably from the History Channel but I can't remember - they claimed that an unknown person ordered the evacuation of WTC 7 and saved a lot of lives.

Is this person still unidentified? It's very difficult to ask questions about 9/11 without TruthersTM getting involved and ruining everything, and as we can see even RationalWiki isn't immune from this. --Vital Forces (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Read a 9/11 conspiracy theory book[edit]

I read a 300-page book 'Hijacking America's mind over 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence'. Of course, as a true RationalWikian I was not convinced. It contained many claims not mentioned here. Some are: (1) The Aircraft were not recognized. (Flight no. only denotes a route). (2) The Aircraft were flying past crash time. (3) Most callers showed exceptional calm. --Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I also a link for it. --Teerthaloke101 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Flight 93 interception[edit]

It is stated that two F16 fighters could not shoot down flight 93 because they were unarmed with missiles. The only alternative was ramming which did not happen because both aircraft returned to base. However, an F16 is armed with a cannon. Two F16s flown by competent pilots should have little trouble shooting down an airliner with their cannons. Whether the aircraft cannon magazines were loaded requires consideration. A claim that the aircraft were unarmed should reference sources regarding missiles and cannon. If sources are unavailable it is not possible absolutely claim the F16s did not shoot down the aircraft. The preponderance of other evidence may well suggest the combined actions of passengers and terrorists either definitely or most likely caused the aircraft to crash. This section requires rewriting to clarify the evidence, inference and conclusion. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Building 7 and the University of Alaska study[edit]

So we have this four-year inquiry from University of Alaska, Fairbanks, into the destruction of WTC 7, ~126-page report, which concludes:

“fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse” and “the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” (Hulsey, Quan, and Xiao, 2019: 2). — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


The University of Alaska study provisionally concluded a global failure of the building’s structure caused the collapse not fire. The comment period closed on 15 November 2019. The final report is expected soon.

The final report came out, you can read the conclusions from the dedicated section or from the abstract:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

Conclusion section:

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Above I have pasted verbatim from therein. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

So, a brief dig into the cited paper reveals it to be at the behest and sponsorship of the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 TruthWikipedia", a group that Wikipedia refers to as "promoting the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed in a controlled demolition, disputing accepted conclusions around the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study" and instead advocates for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities." I think we can safely dismiss it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Not even Wikipedia (hat-tip: GrammarCommie) wants to consider it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert of edits[edit]

Spud, you recently reverted my edits here. Why? I would have thought the edits were obviously harmless. It seems appropriate that an article should be consistently formatted. Prince of Glantri (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm, what are you trying to do formatting-wise? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prince of Glantri It was because you made five edits. Rollback was the quickest way of checking all the changes you made. I planned to undo my edit if I saw your edits were good. When I checked the difference, I couldn't see any changes at all. So I didn't bother undoing what I'd done. Spud (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The changes were formatting. They were not harmful in the slightest, and I would have thought it was clear that they were at least mildly helpful. I cannot see any valid reason whatever why they would be reverted. The change made was removing an empty space between a citation and the statement it supports. If you look closely, you will see that the article sometimes includes such spaces and sometimes it doesn't. There is no reason it should be inconsistent in this respect. Prince of Glantri (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored them. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that @Prince of Glantri, Spud has a strange tendency to rollback multiedit changes to patrol them and then undo the rollback. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Another topic, can someone add?[edit]

‘Truthers’ suggest that the pilots were inexperienced and would be unable to crash into the building. This was debunked here. Can someone add? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 07:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


The sentence beginning ' It would be overdue by President Obama,...' needs tweaking - perhaps 'was not released during President Obama's Presidency' (and possibly '... has not yet been released' added). Anna Livia (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)