Talk:Was 9/11 an inside job?

Objection: There was no evidence of the explosives required for a controlled demolition

Edited for content: Chemistry professor Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen found conclusive evidence of high energy thermitic material in five independent dust samples acquired from Ground Zero. Secondly, the government authorities did not look for the presence of explosives and neither did anybody else until Harrit. ... 9/11 is as clear cut a cover up as has ever existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNomenclature (talk • contribs) 26 November 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories:

NIST "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. ... Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view".

Wikiversity does not support conspiracy theories, and attacks on other users are not accepted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

9/11 Page

This is the most ridiculously stupid thing I have ever read. Just look at the idiots who are objecting. One of them, who simply wrote "seriously?" as a means of supposed objection, has linked two references which he CLEARLY HAS NOT EVEN READ. I can be sure of this because the first was written by Kevin Barrett, who is pro not anti truth. The user has simply viewed the misleading title (i.e. How To Debunk WTC Thermite) and posted the article on that basis. You are a bunch of idiots and I will bet good money that none of you have ever even seen the inside of a university before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.31.31.111 (talk • contribs) 9 April 2020 (UTC) at [1]

Insider trading

As I'm not a materials engineer or a skyscraper architect, technical arguments about the capacity of the buildings to withstand such attacks are difficult for me (and probably most people) to assess. The evidence of insider trading is much easier to corroborate and bears some rather interesting (horrifying) information about the people who may have known in advance. Come on people, use your heads. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@AP295 Thanks for your contribution! I trimmed the argument quite a bit, mainly the Jewish digression, but leaving its essence intact. Kind regards, Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've rephrased the argument and cleaned up this section of the talk page. Not because I believe either were wrong or immaterial, but because I believe this particular argument can be made effectively without reference to ethnicity. If there is to be an argument about whether or not some aspect of America's foreign policy (such as our relationship with Israel) or government is in the best interest of the American public, then it should have its own Wikidebate. Since there's solid evidence of insider trading and other strong supporting circumstantial evidence like Silverstein's tremendously convenient doctor's appointment and insurance policy, we already have a very plausible motive and a very implausible set of coincidences. It takes some degree of effort to avoid extrapolating other motives from this (surely there was more to it than some insurance payout and last-minute options trading) but I will leave it at that for now. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Uh

I apologize for this page being the first edit of mine here (I'm mostly active on EnWiki, UgWiki, and Commons), but what exactly is the scope of this page's inclusion criteria? Red-tailed hawk (discuss • contribs) 04:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

These should be arguments for an against a certain claim, made according to this page WikiDebate. Did you have a specific kind of thing you were worried about including? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not the same user, but this page is concerning to me as well. By its title alone, it makes itself a platform for some rather wild conspiracy theories, but never acknowledges them as such. Worse yet, the first argument (and its followup) breaks many of the WikiDebate guidelines by throwing out a Gish gallop of poorly sourced innuendo. Including such a long argument at the top of the page makes it unclear that there's even a debate taking place; to a visitor, it reads much more like the page is an endorsement of that argument. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually entirely agree: the notion that [x] is up for debate assumes that there is a debate to be had. I don't think we should have WikiDebate pages like "Are women really humans?" or "Can blacks feel pain?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I have some bad news for you then. These debates all exist:

• Should mentally ill people be allowed to have children?
• Should infanticide be legal?
• Is slavery good?
• Is the 2022 Russian military operation in Ukraine justified? / Should Ukraine surrender to Russia in 2022?

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You're just telling me things that I've agonized over for awhile now. :/ (Tho, thank you for doing it.) I'm uncomfortable with this notion that there are just valid debates to be had on everything or that the truth will just always arise as long as we let Nazis have a platform to say whatever they want or whatever, but I haven't had the strength to fight that fight here yet. If you make a proposal to constrain debates and delete certain ones, I will be happy to join in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning this up a little

I've taken a first stab at cleaning this debate up by removing the first two arguments, which were effectively a single argument split into two bullet points. As I noted above, this argument was effectively a "firehose of falsehood", making a variety of poorly sourced claims ranging anywhere from insider trading to "Zionist" involvement to insurance fraud. It doesn't make any single claim which can be coherently discussed. This isn't how a debate is supposed to work, and having this argument appear first, with no rebuttals, gives the wrong impression to visitors.

If someone else wants to reintroduce selected points from that comment individually, with sources, so that they can be examined and refuted individually, go ahead. I'm just not invested enough in this debate to spend all evening trying to make some sense out of it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In general, rather than being removed, an argument should be equipped with an appropriate objection. Whether the argument should be presented as the first one or the last one is another matter.

When an argument bullet point contains multiple separable arguments in one bullet, one can split these arguments and then provide objections point to point. In fact, such objections can be provided even without splitting the argument; it just becomes a little more cumbersome.

In this case, an argument raising the point of "insider trading" was removed and now the phrase "insider trading" is no longer in the debate; that is a loss of substance. Moreover, the argument contained links to articles and these were lost as well. That, to my mind, is not a good outcome. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is some relevant information here:

• Wikipedia:September 11 attacks_advance-knowledge conspiracy theories#Insider trading

Someone may try to use that material to bring it into this debate. The subject of "insider treading" is also covered in #Insider trading above from 2021. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Fine then. I do insist that it appear as the first argument unless something better comes up, as it's a bit more salient than speculative armchair-arguments about materials science and skyscraper construction, no? AP295 (discuss • contribs)

@Omphalographer I've revised it. I think it's better now and I hope you find it acceptable. AP295 (discuss • contribs)