Talk:9/11 Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Criticism section

In the Criticism section, it is currently organized:

1. Criticism of Democrats
2. Criticism of the White House
3. Criticism of Commission Members

I think this could be better organized. For one thing, having criticism of Democrats first makes it seem like that's the most important or noteworthy criticism, which is not the case. (Although it's hard for me to have npov about it.) Second, I think there will always be criticisms of Rs by Ds and by Ds of Rs in any situation, and I think that's barely noteworthy. Ds and Rs might say things in Congress, but only their acts (e.g. extending the commission's deadline) are important, IMHO.

I would divide it like this:

1. Criticism of bias within the commission. (Mentioning potential pro-airline, pro-R, and pro-D bias)
2. Criticism that the commission is being stonewalled. (Mentioning actions by the White House and Congress)
3. Criticism that the commission is being used for partisan purposes (Mostly of Ds)

I think this would be better, but I don't want to unilaterally make such a big change. What do you think?

Quadell 14:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think your idea is good. The current subheadings are ambiguous. Does "Criticism of Democrats" mean Democratic criticism of the Commission, or criticism of the Democrats on the Commission, or just criticism of Democratics in general pertaining to the Commission? Bkonrad | Talk 14:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not fond of criticizing pages that I don't have the expertise to fix, but I think that this article could focus more on the substantive actions of the commission -- such as its numerous high-profile depositions -- and less on the controversy surrounding it. Matthewmeisel 03:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's going to happen when the final report is released. For the time being, I'm creating a new section on the contents of the final report. I'll just add the Iran-Al-Queda rumors for now. Gregb 18:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

News media is reporting that over 500,000 copies of the report have been printed to be sold. Any idea where the money is going? After all any work produced by US government is public domain. --Yakovsh 05:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would assume that it's like any other printed work, that the money's going to the bookseller, and ending up at the organizations printing it. Just like how we can publish and get paid for copies of Shakespeare plays, even though those are public domain. --Gregb 05:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the report

Two points. One, shouldn't there be a separate article for the 9/11 Commission Report? The book is different from the commission itself, and I have made lots of link from other articles that say something like "According to the 9/11 Commission Report. . ." It would seem more natural to split this article into the commission and the report. Does anyone object if I do this?

Second, gregb recently removed this link to criticism of the report: An unresolved mystery: The mass murder of 9/11 His reason was "Link wasn't up to the caliber of the other three. Criticisms are A-OK, as long as they're cogent. Non-addressal of small ambiguities != coverup"

That's a perfectly valid opinion, but it's still an opinion, as I see it. I see a POV issue, and I think that link (or a different one on the same topic) ought to be included. As for criticism of the report, the report's still new, so there aren't too many options. There's the above, from Global Research California, basically summing up the disagreements from different parties. There's this article by the World Socialist Web Site, saying the report let the CIA off the hook too easy. There's this from a Hindu business magazine, saying the report let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia off the hook too easy. And there's this from Defense Talk, that's basically a watered-down version of all of the above. We ought to include at least one link. Any preference?

I guess my main concern was that the link cited was a poor representation of the critics of the report. The particular bit cited in that article is IMHO blown way out of proportion. There are waay juicier targets in the report. I would suggest the article about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia personally. A possible solution would be to create a section within the article for post-release criticisms of the report. I would preferably have added it when I removed the link, but I wasn't as knowledgable about the issue (which led to my subsequent exploration and editing of the 9-11 conspiracy article). I'd welcome just a section that mentions those criticisms. In lieu of that, the pakistan and Saudi Arabia link as well as the Defense Talk article would be wonderful. Sorry for the somewhat cryptic edit summary and my rather abrupt way of handling things. It's just a problem with external links, because you can't improve the content of said external links :) --Gregb 16:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In lieu of a response, I went ahead and added the latter two links to the article. Hopefully this'll make for more balance. --Gregb 19:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a seperate article, Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, that is listed as the main article. Shouldn't much of the material in 'criticisms' be moved there? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the criticisms section in the article, and found them to mostly be criticisms of the commission. There is no main article (that I can find) for criticisms of the commission, so the link to a main article for this section should be removed completely. I think that the link to the commission's report as the main article right under that header is inappropriate, inconsistent, and misleading. There is already a link under the report section for that page, and it is appropriate. Umeboshi 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

oops, this comment belongs in the criticisms section above. Umeboshi 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were all hijackers Saudi?

The article says "The commission also concluded all the 19 hijackers that carried out the attacks where all from Saudi Arabia". Did the report really say that? I think this is incorrect. Indeed, 15 of them were Saudi nationals, but those were the "muscle men". The pilots and brains were all not Saudis. Namely, Mohammed Atta, the leader, was Egyptian, Ziad Jarrah was Lebanese, and Marwan al-Shehhi was from the UAE. Fayez Banihammad was also not a Saudi, though not a lead figure in the hijacking. Only one pilot/leader/planner was a Saudi, Hani Hanjour. Can anyone who read all of the report point us to what it really says? -- KB 17:06, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

That is flat out wrong. 15 were Saudi, and 4 were egyptian. →Raul654 17:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

How can you say that 4 were Egyptians? Only one was Egyptian (Atta), and there are two from the UAE, and one from Lebanon. Add to that 15 Saudis, and you have 19 total! Please state your source. Or is it just an allegation? -- KB 03:45, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

The 15/4 numbers are what were widely reported after the attacks. →Raul654 03:55, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

No. The media reports said 15/4, but never said 4 were all Egyptians. I did the break down above, and Quadell below points to the correct breakdown: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from UAE. It is notable to see that all the muscle was from Saudi, while the planner/brains/pilots were mostly not. In the end, the report was correct, and it was misquoted in the original wording of the wikipedia article. I guess that was the point I was making to begin with, and it is now settled. -- KB 15:48, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Ahem. According to the report, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, one was from Lebanon (Jarrah), one was from Egypt (Atta), and two were from the United Arab Emirates (Banihammad and al-Shehhi). (I don't ever recall seeing a 15/4 allegation; the names and origins of the 19 hijackers were reported by the FBI the week after the attacks.) You can peruse through the various organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks for details. I've been working on them for the past couple weeks, and I'm quite proud of the articles. Quadell (talk) 14:25, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't the names of the 19 hijackers appear on any of the four flight manifests? Why isn't the Western press following up on reports that several of the named hijackers are still alive? Now talk about news! There is only one reason that the mainstream corporate media isn't all over that story like flies on you-know-what. There's a cover-up and the media models, er I mean, reporters, are too scared to open Pandora's Box. Who is saying "No" to stories that question our government's complicity and/or involvement in the 9/11 attacks? The next question is "Why?" Networks want ratings and papers want readers. The first network or major paper to take that bold step will certainly achieve that. Getting back to the question of whether or not 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, let's first take a step back. If some of these individuals are still alive, this story isn't so closed is it? Type in a search "9/11 hijackers still alive" and see what you find. Still think it was 19 men with box cutters? Me either...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.79.226 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] The Great "Terrorism" Debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't the names of the 19 hijackers appear on any of the four flight manifests? Why isn't the Western press following up on reports that several of the named hijackers are still alive? Now talk about news! There is only one reason that the mainstream corporate media isn't all over that story like flies on you-know-what. There's a cover-up and the media models, er I mean, reporters, are too scared to open Pandora's Box. Who is saying "No" to stories that question our government's complicity and/or involvement in the 9/1 attacks? The next question is "Why?" Networks want ratings and papers want readers. The first network or major paper to take that bold step will certainly achieve that. Getting back to the question of whether or not 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, let's first take a step back. If some of these individuals are still alive, this story isn't so closed is it? Type in a search "9/11 hijackers still alive" and see what you find. Still think it was 19 men with box cutters? Me either...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.79.226 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Ed Asner doesn't belong here

There are other articles where this would be better placed, like List of people questioning the official American 9/11 account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] created how?

How was the commission "set up in late 2002"? By whom, and in what way? I was just curious about those things, but can't find anything in the article about it with a quick skim. Fresheneesz 04:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. That part of the Commission's history is sorely lacking. Anyone interested in writing something up with sources?--JustFacts 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and links

This page was flagged due to the inconsistency in its linking and referencing. I think I have it fixed, if someone could please go through and double-check my work. There were two references I could not verify existed...if you feel those unreferenced sentences should just be deleted then it probably should. akronpow 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language problem

The obviously official text says ... including preparedness for (and the immediate response to) the attacks. I have a problem to understand this: preparedness for the attacs is a bit late. they already happened. Or: who prepared them? The commission? Maybe people with English as mother-tongue can explain. In the Esperanto-translation in Vikipedia it reads even more funny --Hans W 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)