Talk:9/11: The Big Lie
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11: The Big Lie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FAA
edit- This thesis would be complete with an explanation on the disappearance of the plane which, according to the official version, crashed against the Pentagon. Besides, the official version has been rejected by the FAA, for which the plane disappeared over a natural reserve 500 kilometers from Washington, without showing again on the radar screens.
Is Meyssan just claiming that the FAA rejected the official version of the events of 9/11, or did they really? It isn't clear. If they did, isn't a citation needed? Herorev 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Have swaped a few words around here, I think it makes a bit more sense now. Hamish Cook 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that the above italicized quote must be from some previous version of the article. But however the words get swapped around, it doesn't seem to make any sense. The suggestion that no plane hit the Pentagon is contradicted by numerous eyewitness accounts. NCdave 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Criticsm vs. Praise?
editUnbalanced. Totally. 203.218.112.238 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand how the criticism vs. praise section can be unbalanced? I find it hard to imagine a notable journal or other media outlet praising this book...CoolMike 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how criticism can be balanced. The people who originally added, and re-added, the unbalanced tag did not add them with their accounts nor left any information about what they believed was unbalanced. Retropunk (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
With out getting into details, the Popular Mechanics 'article' has been most thoroughly debunked and as such should not really be cited as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.28.30 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Spanish version much more complete
editThis is one of the rare entries where the spanish version is much more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.35.234.118 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 9/11: The Big Lie. 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/20130315195123/http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20050628163417atlahtnevel0.1261103.html to http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20050628163417atlahtnevel0.1261103.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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 9/11: The Big Lie. 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/20051222025237/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)