User:Xiutwel/911 questioning paragraph draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] See also

[edit] Compare: the Dutch wikipedia

This is the (google translated) lead of the nl.wikipedia article:

The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, often referred to as 9 / 11 (nine eleven), include a four terrorist attacks on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 through hijacked passenger in the northeast of the United States were executed. The Saudi multimillionaire Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist Islamic be held responsible for these attacks. On this date collars two aircraft are in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, located at the southern tip of Manhattan in New York City, in a plane into the Pentagon near Washington DC In a plane crash in the near Shanksville (Pennsylvania). The attacks were carried out according to official reports by nineteen from the Middle East (mainly from Saudi Arabia) members of the Islamic terrorist Al Qaeda. According to official figures from February 2005 came to this 2973 attacks people from 63 countries lost their lives.

Please note that it attributes the opinion on the matter of who the perpatrators are.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] draft paragraph

draft changes sources source quality discussion (primary, secondary)
[edit] (line: growing number)

"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a growing

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: question bush doctrine)

number of people have begun to question the official version of events. (source)

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: are these the most important questions?)

In particular

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: escape air defense)

they question that the four hijacked planes could have escaped American air defense for as long as they did, explained solely by human error, (source)

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: war exercises / war games )

and they question what role was played by the multiple simulataneous war exercises conducted that day by the U.S. military. (source)

changes
  1. fromthewilderness
  2. fromthewilderness
  3. The Associated Press
  4. Washington Post
  5. 911 Commission 12th public hearing
  1. primary source which shows it is questioned
  2. General Eberhart http://www.google.nl/search?q=%22Sir,+my+belief+is+that+it+helped+because+of+the+manning,%22+&filter=0
  3. AP mentions audience asking about war games, and Commission asking for quiet.
  4. transcript
  5. transcript
[edit] (line: steel tower collapse)

Also they question the likelihood that three steel-framed buildings might have collapsed solely due to fire,

buildings towers

sources
  • We should have sources for: steel weakening temperatures, kerosine fire, molten metal in the basement, traces of cordite, 45 degrees cut beams, the disposal of the rubble without analysis, bomb sniffing dogs, power down
[edit] (line: WTC7 seperate case?)

especially when only two of them were struck by aircraft (source)

changes
  1. video Danny Jowenko, Zembla, WTC 7, Dutch Television
  2. FEMA report
  1. interview with subtitles, claiming: WTC7 must have been demolished. FEMA offical report: unexplained.
  2. ...
[edit] (line: fire precedent)

and there is no history of any steel-framed building having previously collapsed solely due to fire. (source)

building tower

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: failing to ask the questions)

Critics note that the 9/11 Commission presumed good faith on the part of government officials, and therefore failed to ask the right questions

changes
  1. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050927220055973
  2. http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200404150832.asp
  3. http://www.readersread.com/features/peterlance.htm
  1. primary, just 1 question
  2. secondary, not closely related to the events of that day
  3. this one seems good enough: secondary, and more than one issue
[edit] (line: omissions)

or credit testimony that ran counter to the official version of events,

changes
  1. Norman Mineta
  1. to show that his testimony was excluded from the report
[edit] (line: secondary explosions)

in particular testimony by witnesses who claim to have suffered from secondary explosions in the buildings (source).

changes
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. ...
  1. William Rodriguez claiming the explosion below was 7 seconds before the explosion above (i.e. the plane)
  2. other witnesses
  3. woman who survived
[edit] (line: bush behaviour)

Critics also note that President Bush refused to testify under oath, as requested by the 9/11 Commission. (source)

changes
  1. ...
  1. Barrie Zwicker
[edit] (line: drawing of LIHOP en MIHOP conclusions)

Those who question the official version of events conclude

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: sorts of coverup: negligence/complicity)

that there may have been a coverup, either of negligence or complicity,

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: demands)

and they demand further investigation into the matter. (source)

changes

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: theories)

In addition some have offered alternative theories that might better explain facts that are inconsistent

are they deem

sources

discussion
[edit] (line: inconsistent)

with the official version of events. (source)"

changes

sources

discussion

Contents


[edit] General discussion

A major issue is, that this text should be very, very neutrally worded. I hope to be able to find the preferred secondary sources. Perhaps we will have to do with primary sources. Another issue is attributing. Are we going to be vague, like "many", "most" etc. or are we going to call the names of prominent spokespersons?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice breakdown. I believe we can use primary sources for the facts underlying the claims, however for this addition to fly unimpeded we must use secondary sources for the claims themselves. Apostle12 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no "many," "most" or other vague adjectives in the proposed addition at present, and I don't think we should add any. The only phrase of this sort is "A growing number," and we must source that the number of critics of the official version of events is indeed growing.Apostle12 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having a hard time using the breakdown chart (above). In particular I wanted to add this source to the "war games" sentence. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030105_mckinney_question.shtml

How do I do that?Apostle12 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)