User:Xiutwel/concatenated Talk:9/11 archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Words can capture reality

...let's set it free!

here begin the archives, included using templates, to facilitate searching in all of them at once.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

ARCHIVE NUMERO 1

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


The collapse of the third skyscraper was not mentioned - WTC#7 I believe. It wasn't hit, and didn't seem to be in the midst of a towering inferno, but it collapsed similarly - it was so close ( 300 ft away ) and it may have been conincidential but still of interest.


Would anyone care to refactor and carefully edit this page? It's got a lot of good information, but I think we can do better.

Factual Details 1.0

Times

Also, it might be better to approximate all times unless the media settle on a time that the events happen. Currently there are a lot of discrepancies.

  • [9] has it that the times are 8:48 and 9:03. An earlier graphic available there had the times as 8:50 and 9:01.
  • [10] says 8:45 and 9:03.

Originally on the main page: 8:48 AM EDT on September 11, 2001 ... 9:06 AM EDT,

Symbolism Theories and/or Palestinian Involvement

It is very clear that this attack was well planned. You can see from the choice of date, time, target and even flight number is picked around the US emergency number 911. The date is Sept 11, the time is around around 9am, they probably wanted to hit exactly on 9:11am but it would be hard to really control the flight time. One of the flight chosen was flight 11. The WTC twin towers look like 11 in new york skylines.

The news said this week also coincide with the Israeli Palestine peace talk by Jimmy Carter at Camp David. One of the plane crashed in Pennsylvania and believed to target Camp David.

There are many symbolism used in this attack and everything seems to point to the Palestinian though they denied their involvement.

The Palestinian claims responsibility initially when the damage was relatively minor. They probably only wanted to leave two big holes in one of US icon. But when the buildings collapsed and killed tens of thousands of people, they realized they have done more than they planned so they reverted their claim. That is just what any coward would do.

This is purely speculative, and I should think, doubtful. - Tim

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with any of theories I read during these years about the date chosen by al-Qaeda. As European I think this is due to the youth of the U.S.A. and its lack of history.

At first we must ask ourselves what Islam says, why al-Qaeda was born, what al-Qaeda wants and who are the Heads.

The main principle of the Muslim Religion is in few words: "Allah is one and Mohammed is his Profhet".

The main figure in the Islam is the Caliph. The first Caliph was Adam.

The Islam overruns the conception of Indipendent States, such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Lybanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Turkey.

al-Qaeda as radical fundamentalist Islamic group, whose name means "the base" in English", has the main purpose to establish the pure application of the Muslim Religion just under one Guide, the Caliph, and to restore the Caliphate over the whole Islamic World.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are founders and senior members of al-Qaeda's shura council, and come from prominent high class families.

"We are in a new phase of a very old war" says - at the beginning of an Islamic website - the title of a townscape painted by Italian painter Bernardo Bellotto (Venice 1721-1780 Warsaw), called Canaletto, between 1759/1761 in Vienna in a series of 13 prospects and reproducing the exact topographical urban panorama from the Belvedere (palace) .

This perspective construction unfolds between the gardens of both the Schwarzenberg Palace and the Belvedere itself in the foreground to a row of stately Baroque palaces and churches in the middle focal plane of the painting. These buildings are evidence of the active construction "boom" in Vienna after the second Turkish siege in 1683.

But why the Belvedere (palace)?

The Belvedere (palace) is a baroque complex built by Prince Eugene of Savoy in the 3rd district of Vienna, south-east of the city center.

After buying the plot of land in 1697, Prince Eugene had a large park created. The Schloss Belvedere began as a suburban entertainment villa: in 1714 work began to erect what is now called the Lower Belvedere, not as a palace but as a garden villa, with an orangerie and paintings gallery, with suitable living quarters. The architect was Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt, one of the most important architects of the Austrian Baroque, who produced in the complex of buildings his masterwork.

And who was Prince Eugene of Savoy?

Prince Eugene of Savoy was one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the Habsburg Empire and took part in the first large-scale battle of the Habsburg-Ottoman Wars, the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

After a mass in a Chapel in Kahlenberg at the gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683, in the morning, Jan III Sobieski King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and commander in Chief of the Christian Army of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, moved against the Muslim Armies of the Sultan Mehmed IV, commanded by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, and defeated. The battle finished on September 12, 1683, about at 17 p.m.

The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the Central European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Over the sixteen years following the battle, the Habsburgs of Austria, and their allies gradually occupied and dominated southern Hungary and Transylvania, which had been largely cleared by the Turkish forces.

The date of September 11, 2001 attacks chosen by al-Qaeda could mean the beginning and the revenge of a "very old War" against the Infidels.

WP response

Someone had set up a memorial wiki of sorts at http://sknkwrks.ath.cx:1957/91101/wiki.pl By the way, I'd like to thank those people who were so quick to document the tragedy here...I found out more from wiki than I found out from the news. The text of Bush's address should be added too.

Yes, it is quite remarkable. This article has received quite a lot of attention--well over 200 edits in about 27 hours--I just look forward to the time when we get that same unity of purpose on less tragic subjects too. --KQ

I know this isn't a discussion forum but i'd like to thank Wikipedia too for keeping me up to date yesterday. I was stuck in my office here in Northern Ireland during the attack with no tv, no radio and all the news sites were down. - JamieTheFoool

Terror Tuesday

I haven't yet heard the phrase "Terror Tuesday." Has anyone else? Also, does anyone know why, after some people edit a page, an extra carriage return is added at the end of every paragraph? That's very annoying to remove for such a huge article! --LMS

I've included The Terror Tuesday expression (I've read it somewhere). Didn't know that I should edit this page first...

Who said it? I don't think Wikipedia should call it that just because you've "read it somewhere." You don't need to edit this page first, usually.


"Terror Tuesday" may refer to Tuesday, 29 May 1543,the day the Ottoman captured Constantanople. Details are spelled out in Nicolo Barbaro's "Diary of the Siege of Constantinople 1453."

User Tech Problems

Please, 200.204.171.xxx , when you edit a page, it (automatically, apparently) adds carriage returns after EVERY PARAGRAPH. This is extremely annoying. Can you think of any reason why this is happening? --LMS --- Regarding the carriage returns... perhaps it's because I'm running Linux and there's a difference between Win32 CrLf and *nix " " I think... it also could be because I'm using Opera (but this is less likely).

Well, until you figure it out, could you please not edit pages? I'm getting tired of removing all the extra spaces. --LMS

Actually, it's more likely to be your browser's fault than the OS. I've edited pages from Unix boxes with no problem--the edited text gets passed back to Bomis via HTTP by the browser, and HTTP is very standardized regardless of the OSes at each end, so it the text gets mangled it's probably the browser. --LDC

It is in fact an Opera-for-Linux bug. I reported this bug to Opera several months ago when I discovered it but it's not been fixed. It occurs with other versions of Wiki besides UseModWiki. I know of no workaround except to use a different browser when editing wiki pages (which is what I do). It is probably a simple thing to fix but since Opera is closed source we've no recourse but to use something else until Opera fixes it.

Factual Details 1.5

Can anyone verify that the northern tower (tower number one, the one to be hit first) was actually hit from the south side? I've seen conflicting reports. --AxelBoldt

There were references about using cell phones from the plane. Should it mean the air phone on the back of the passenger seat. I don't know if cell phone would work when the plane is in the air. I remember I heard air phone, not cell phone in the news. Can anyone confirm and correct?

Nostradamus & Other Misinformation

I've heard rumors about a Nostradamus prophecy, something along the lines of "Two twin brothers will fall. The third great war will begin as the city of gold burns" - Anyone have a link to the full text. It would be interesting to read, if it is indeed true. Or maybe it's just an urban myth. - JamieTheFoool

Perhaps you can find it at http://www.astrologer.ru:8003/Nostradamiana/centuries-eng.html --css

i'm not sure, but it sounds like a blatant urban myth to me. i was on #worldtradecenter on openprojects.net the night (UK time) of the 11th and that was going round. also it was in one of our stupid tabloid papers, every time i heard it, it was worlded totaly differently. -- Asa

just pulled it from my IRC logs (just so you can see how blatantly bogus it is) -- Asa:
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654
Nostradamus died in 1566, after which he tended not to write much. Actually, this "prophecy" appears to come from http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~nmarshal/nostradamus.htm, where it is given as a fictitious example of the sort of thing that Nostradamus wrote, not as something that he actually did write. But according to the HTTP header this page dates from 20 May 1998 22:45:23 GMT... --Zundark

Bogus, all right. Whoever heard of New York being described as the City of God? I've only ever heard Mammon mentioned in that context before.... Every 10 years someone brings out a new version of Nostradamus, with new retrospective interpretations. Whatever happened to the invasion from mars in 1999 that the 1970s edition predicted? Malcolm Farmer

- I think these prophecys come from the wildly innacurate English translations of Nostradamus' 17th Century French. Is this an actual prophecy, wrongly translated or is it completely fabricated. It would be interesting to see what is the case.

For a different kind of prophecy, see this story on 'wired': http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46771,00.html

What to do with misinformation? The bogus Nostradamus prophecy comes to mind; another example might be the recent edit to the main page: "Removed reference to Kashmiri claiming; haven't heared anything of it since the first time, so I assume it was shown to be a fake quickly." I can imagine that retaining misinformation and rumor -- but *clearly labeling it as misinformation or rumor* might be of some value to researchers in the future trying to understand how people deal with crises. On the other hand, it makes sense to remove it if keeping it could lead to more harm than good. I don't know.

I see no harm in keeping it, if it is moved to Rumours of Misinformation or something. This could prove usefull for future research as many of these rumours may be lost completely as time goes on. - JamieTheFoool
Started a Misinformation page. RjLesch

The prophecies about 9/11 were hoaxes. I am not a believer in Nostradamus, but know a little about him. I got several e-mails on that day from people asking me about it, because they knew I would know about it. The famous prophecy about 1999 is not about an invasion from Mars, but "a great king of Terror to revive the King of the Mongols". Much of this quatrain fits with the September 11 events, so if any of them were to be about 9/11, it would be this one. It could also be placed with the Internet phenomenon page and would likely make a good addition. Rt66lt 01:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Article Content 1.0

Should we add a Personal Recollections--September 11, 2001 page for cataloguing the mundane events of everyone on that day? A social history should start as soon as possible so as to avoid the degradation and inflation of memory over time. I think the non-events, those little moments of wonder and fear, from around the country, will be immensely important for this project, which can gather such data so quickly.

I just found http://www.bostoncoop.net:8080/SeptEleven?SeptEleven SeptEleven, a Wiki site for the terrorist attack. Unfortunately it's using the standard wiki, not the sexier wikipedia wiki. I'm not sure if that would be a better place for some of this, etc. Eh. Time to go outside. --The Cunctator

This page is getting us a lot of traffic...would someone (who is following the page more closely than I am...) please render it in consistent formatting, copyedit, etc.? This would be a great service... --Larry Sanger

I really hope I wasn't too bold in editing, but I think this was the right thing to do. We need to add back information to the main page, basically summarizing what's in each category, I think. Or you can say I really erred and undiff it. --The Cunctator

Okay, I went wholesale on the site. I really, really don't like that "airport security" link. Maybe it should be "Background history" or something? The See also's should probably have links to the airplane flights. There's plenty of improvement still.

Is there a way to make templates? It would be so great if there could be one footer page, so that it could be updated for all the pages. (So you could write something like #INCLUDE Footerpage and it would wiki...) If that isn't a current feature, I hope it gets implemented at some point. Though of course the footer is actually different for each page, at the moment. Eh.

Finally: should the external news pages be on its own page? I lean toward keeping them at the bottom of the main page...each subpage has their external links/references at the bottom. I don't feel strongly enough to revert it, though. --The Cunctator

I just moved off the Casualties Talk to (natch) Casualties Talk. --The Cunctator

Added link to urbanlegends.about.com, the amazingly definitive site about urban legends and rumor-mongering. David Emery's coverage of the attack is astoundingly good. There's no need for us to try to duplicate the effort, but Wikipedia certainly could complement it. --The Cunctator

I just realized that the "related" links to Palestine, Gaza Strip, etc. on the bottom of the page, and on the homepage, are unfair and inflammatory. They were part of the news at the beginning, but are less directly related to the story now than say, Boston, Canada, or box cutters. Shouldn't those links be removed? (I don't think the Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan etc. links should be removed.) --The Cunctator

Format & Style

Hey Cunctator, the way we've been writing biographies has been generally as follows: Full Name In Bold (date-date) was a [occupation or other significant fact]... In other words, full sentences are good. --Larry

Okay. Though I am partial to the other way.

More importantly, I'd like to encourage people to submit photos, especially people. Is there a way to allow people to do that, even an email address they could send images to that someone with access to the server could add? I know this is a general feature request, but I'd like to set something up as soon as possible. --The Cunctator

Let me voice my support for full sentences.  :-) As for graphics, we've so far had to submit them to jasonr at bomis.com to have him upload them. So far I think that has been done only for banners, though Jimbo et al may wish to make an exception.  :-) --KQ

Re the footer on all the September 11 pages: I think it would be nice with a ruler separating it from the body text of the page. It seems a bit overenthusiastic to edit all the pages (quite a few now!) just to put that in, but perhaps we should add it as we do other edits? --Pinkunicorn

I'm actually less enthusiastic than you are about the rules. As long as the elements of a page are recognizable as blocks, then blank space is usually the best separator. Rules should be used sparingly. IMHO. But I really don't care; right now there's no uniformity in the pages. The person who wants to make the effort to make them uniform wins, in my book. 'Swhy we need that #INCLUDE mechanism; see above or InsertPagesIntoOtherPages while I work on fixing up the Feature requests monstrosity. --The Cunctator


Solicitation of Donations

There is a link to an external donations page. While I don't have a problem in principle with such a link, the way the text is currently written implies that wikipedia somehow approves the link. Is this appropriate? -- Robert Merkel

I moved it to the donation page and removed the plea. The same pice of text also appeared at the homepage sometime yesterday. --css

Content 2.0

There's a story on what happened on the plane that crashed in the field here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp?pne=msn

(re U.S. attack on Sudan plant) The US claimed the plant was involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons, but never released the results of soil tests it had conducted at the site which it said proved its claim; a government spokesman said the information was classified. Some have argued that Clinton ordered the attack in order to deflect attention from the scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. (See the amazingly prescient movie "Wag the Dog", released in January 1998, in which a famous spin doctor (Robert De Niro) is enlisted along with a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to create a quick (but phony) war in order to take the public's focus off of the president's scandalous personal life. The US also tried to

Someone just changed "what might be the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world" to "...on United States' land". While there have been more devastating battles, attacks, acts (e.g. bombing of Dresden, Holocaust, etc.), I think the original description was entirely justifiable. I'm changing it back, unless someone can point to a more devastating terrorist attack. "the history of the world" is slightly misleading hyperbole, as terrorism is a modern phenomenon, but in pretty much any measure I can think of, this is an act that is more than just an American history event. --TheCunctator

It's a useful perspective; I think Wikipedia needs comprehensive entries about all the things listed in that article: Hiroshima, Mai Lai, the Gulf War, various starvation, etc. I know my emphasis on this attack is in a way selfish, but I don't intend to ignore everything else. The Back history page does a reasonable job at mentioning some of the things mentioned in that article. And the History of Afghanistan article is getting quite good.

The best way, I believe, to be "fair" to all the victims of injustice on Wikipedia is to create sober entries for each act, to tell the history as factually as possible. --TheCunctator

NOTE: Saudi Arabia stopped recognizing the Taliban as the official Afghan government in 1998, when it asked Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden, and Afghanistan refused.

(Moved from the Back history page)
I think this page should be located at Background history, not Back history. I'd make the change but then I'd have to change all those subpages and links lists.  :-)

I think Back history is fine, but I don't feel strongly either way. --TheCunctator

Naming

The War on Terror I don't want to make any changes, as so much fine work has been done, but the general phrase used by everyone (World media, politicians, etc) seems to be "The War On Terror". The anthrax events happening worldwide, the attack on afghanistan all fall under this heading, and I am thinking that the Sept 11 pages belong under than as well.

And I know that "the War on Terror" seems a bit vague, but then so does "The Gulf War", "The Great War", "The War of the Roses". This is what people will call it for all time I am guessing. - MB

I kind of doubt it, actually, since it's so freaking propagandistic. I suspect the historical name will be something like The American War on Islamic Terrorism or The First World War of the Third Millenium (depending on how it pans out).
And I really don't want Wikipedia to have its main entry called "The War on Terror". I've started collecting the Slogans and terms used. Right now a The War on Terror entry should be more about the propagandic use of the phrase rather than a clearinghouse for the developing events. Note that in the Islamic world the name being used by everyone (World media, politicians, etc.) is The War on Islam. --TheCunctator

Content 3.0

165.121.24.xxx, can you state where you're getting the information from? These pages, for obvious reasons, need to be assiduously referenced. It's truly great that you're adding the information, but if it can't be confirmed, then we'll get in trouble. Also, it seems like some of the info is being copied verbatim from some other reference, which is also dangerous (such as the Zoe Johnson entry). Please alleviate my fears. --TheCunctator

ABDUL RASHID DOSTUM = MABUS

Ahh... thanks for that. Has your medication been checked lately?

Should add that the World Trade Center fire was finally extinguished on December 19 after burning for three months. But I can't find where to put it. --rmhermen

The trick is to first add to the Timeline: Timeline December 2001 (which didn't exist yet because I don't like adding to Wikipedia much any more)

then the best place for the entry within the current framework is probably Rescue and recovery effort, a page which needs a lot of work.

But the number one answer is to be bold in editing pages. Just stick it in somewhere, and if you can't find a place to put it, make one.

--TheCunctator

There's no longer any doubt that the plane that crashed in the field was crashed due to the efforts of the passengers and crew to overpower the hijackers, is there? --User:Robert Merkel

NPOV Complaint

This article is nowhere near NPOV. First of all, the term "terrorist" is a disputed term and should not appear in titles. Although this attack would satisfy most people's definition of a "terrorist attack", there are some who simply refuse to have such a definition, and "terrorist" ought to be avoided in titles. For one thing, the Pentagon is by any sane criteria a legitimate military target, and people working there (even if they wear civilian suits) are not civilians in the sense understood by international law.

Also the "in memoriam" should either appear in absolutely all accounts of a major battle or massacre or atrocity or serial killing, or nowhere whatsoever.

Calling for donations is especially inappropriate given there are children in Western Afghanistan at this moment being sold into slavery for a few dollars as aid from Iran is prevented from reaching them. If someone cares to mention literally all the victims of all the events that came from Sept. 11th, fine, go for it.

Given that Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" is the biggest selling nonfiction work in America right now, I think the ordinary US point of view is somewhat more critical of US foreign policy, intelligence failures, bad leadership (i.e. Bush who was pointing at nonexistent North Korean missiles on Sept. 10th), quick judgement (the task force sailed for Afghanistan on September 19th - and must have taken a whole week to get ready, suggesting that there was no more than one day's judgement involved).

I am putting this article on a Death Warrant. Fix it without 72 hours please. Out of respect for victims and authors, I won't touch it, but this is just not an encyclopedia article as it stands. It's hopelessly US-centric, self-absorbed even, and reminds me of worthless US media coverage.

If it reads the same in 72 hours, I'm going to find someone on Indymedia to "fix" it... someone with a radically different point of view. Such a point of view might well say "a bunch of stupid American military planners and debt traders and other criminals believed they could get away with mass murder on a global scale forever and never pay for it - they and many civilian plane passengers learned differently on September 11th, 2001..."

Conspiracy Theories

I find the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Zionist conspiracy theories hardly useful, except for maybe the first paragraph. The rest of the page is merely a bunch of quotes, which don't give much information on the subject - some of them are probably out of context as well. I would propose to greatly reduce the number of quotes (or even remove them all), maybe put some links to the articles they were taken from. May 30, 20002 - jheijmans

I agree that this new entry needs work! Although I am the one who contributed these quotes, they were only intended as the beginning of the article, not the end of it. They can serve as the nucleus for more writing. We need others who are well read in this subject to contribute as well. Note that conspiracy theory is a major component of Arab and middle-eastern politics and sociology. (For example, consider the Egyptian claims of a Zionist hormone-laced bubblegum conspiracy: Egyptians claimed that pre-marital sex in Egypt by teenage girls is really caused by a Zionist plot to lace bubble-gum with aphrodisiacs...and this conspiracy theory was bandied around for months in the Government funded state press. RK
However, I disagree that these quotes were taken out of context. I am not aware of any analysis that disagrees with the plain meaning of these texts. In fact, in what possible context could one take them to mean anything different? Remember that in some Arab countries it is taught in schools that there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews to secretly rule the world. This is presented as an indisputable historical fact, from elementary school up through college. Is it any surprise that in such a society, many would blame "the Jews" for the WTC terrorism as well? There are many moderate Arab professors and journalists in the West who know that this is false, and have written about this phenomenon. It would good to read about and summarize their research in this article. RK

I know there is/was such a thing as a suspsected Zionist conspiracy, which lived/s mostly in the Arab world. And so this article about it, in conjunction with the 9/11 attacks seems justified for an encyclopedia article. But: I don't think it really is one now. Reading more than two quotations gets boring. I have to see the common lines between them (if any) myself, and I don't want to do that when reading an encyclopedia article. In this case, where the Western reader may be unfamiliar with the topic, a few quotations would be good. But not this amount. About the out-of-context thing: when quoting people, there's always the danger their sentences were taken out of context. I cannot judge, since I didn't read that context. Another important part of the context is what you just mentioned: the constant Zionist conspiracy theories in the Arab world. The average reader may not know about this, and may therefore be surprised about such theories. Knowing such theories exist for years already, it may be easier to understand. jheijmans

I think that the 2823 casualty figure for the World Trade Center includes those on the airplanes. Does anyone knopw for certain? If so we are double counting some of the casualties. --rmhermen

"fortunately such a declaration was not made for the Oklahoma City bombing" sounds like a violation of NPOV. -- Zoe

Subpages and/or Memoriam

I think many of the subpages here are too much of a good thing. Of course this was a terrible event, but does an encyclopedia need lists of victims (some even with articles on them...), missing persons, media slogans, New York Times articles, related jokes, etc.? I don't think so. If I read an encyclopedia, I want to get the real info. What happened, what was were the important consequences etc. All the other info may be nice for a site dedicated to the subject, but not for an encyclopedia. Also the "In Memoriam" seems a bit overdone for an encyclopedia - it does not give me the idea Wikipedia is authorative or neutral on the subject.

Otherwise, we should have a list of all the six million Jews killed in WWII, and of all the other millions and millions of war and violence victims, and place "In Memoriam" signs there as well.

Summarising: this collection of subpages should be rewritten to make a real encyclopedia article.

June 14, 2002 jheijmans

I agree in general, but except for the main page these pages are the most popular for the entire site and are listed very high on google. I would hate to see them go for this and personal emotional reasons which I can't ignore. These pages are a reflection of how people tried to cope with an event of unprecedented magnitude. Can we hold off on making any major changes until at least the year anniversary of this event has passed? --maveric149
How about moving the "in memorium" thing over to the top of the list of victims? That way at least the front page looks more "professional," and people who are going to look at the list of victims are likely to expect something like the "in memorium" banner there.
We can start trimming some of the less encyclopedic stuff gradually over time, perhaps replacing it with more encyclopedic stuff in the process. Bryan Derksen
Yes, I noticed their popularity as well, that has kept me from writing this earlier. And maybe that means these should not be removed, but moved to another appropriate location (e.g. other website). I also see this is a sensitive topic, but Wikipedia should remain neutral, and this page does not really show neutrality. It would be fine with me to wait until a year afterwards or so before making the changes (though pages as "Give blood" are no longer useful anymore of course). I will (re)move the "In memoriam" block in a moment, however. -- jheijmans
One potential future home for some of this stuff could be Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages. True, the sept. 11 thing isn't directly wikipedia-related, but it seems reasonable to me that we might want to keep a copy of this article for posterity over there even though a lot of it is obsolete or non-encyclopedic. Plus, the transition can be made gracefully, with redirections.
No hurry, of course. Bryan Derksen

Account of reactions

Who wrote this lot?

  • "A significant minority see the attack as a likely outcome of past United States involvement in the Middle East and surrounding area, and fear that a violent response will only continue the cycle.
  • A related viewpoint is that such acts of terrorism as this are inevitable due to the economic and social imperialism of the United States and multinational corporations, which creates pockets of hatred in poor countries with minimal control of their political destiny, due to overwhelming economic pressures from outside.
  • However, the majority of people all over the world believe that terrorism is an absolute evil, that may have a cause but always lacks justification. In their opinion, the fact that the assailants resorted to the use of force in genocidal proportions, prevents them from being legitimate entities and voids their right to have their opinion respected by the world community. "

This is horribly biased. 'Significant minority', hatred only in 'poor widdwe countries that can't sort themselves out. Give me a break. I agree with 24 above, this whole 9/11 reads suspiciously like something from CNN or (even) worse. Time for some NPOVing, surely? Radiofriendlyunitshifta, Tuesday, July 16, 2002

Dates

As for particular dates of events, shouldn't ISO standard date format be used for the names of entries, such as 2001 September 11? — Anonymous (129.116.166.xxx)

This is an issue much greater than this one page. We use dates of this form all over Wikipedia by default, probably as a result of the American bias here. I'd suggest taking this up in a place more widely read by the regulars than this; if you're new here and don't know, try starting at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Toby 06:41 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 2

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

(New comments go on the bottom of the page.)

See also Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive

Can anyone think of deadlier terrorist attacks? I have trouble imagining one. Wars, battles, and government-driven massacres have killed more people in one day, but nothing that could be reasonably described as a terrorist incident. Correct? --The Cunctator

I think that it may go to the definition of "terrorist", which is notoriously problematic. Are government-driven massacres terrorist attacks? I'm inclined to say that they are, since a major purpose is to instill fear in the remaining population; "state terrorism" is not an oxymoron to me. Others will disagree, of course. So in any case, in order to be impartial on the state terrorism issue, we would have to say "deadliest non-state terrorist incident".

I made the change when I did specifically because I realised that I no longer saw US news media describing the attack as the worst ever, only as the worst in the US. Perhaps they were simply being cautious, but should we not be as cautious? Ultimately, I think that the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, and I didn't see any attempt to justify it on the talk page; if I had, I'd have added to that discussion first. But I may have missed something, so let me know.

— Toby 01:55 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

Unless you can provide an example of a deadlier terrorist attack, I am reverting it to deadliest in the "world". --rmhermen

I can't imagine why you think the burden of proof lies with me. It would be one thing if most other sources agreed with you. But they don't; outside of right-wing literature, I usually see only phrases like "deadliest terrorist attack in US history" or "deadliest act of terrorism on US soil". It would be one thing if I were saying ‹What most people think that they know isn't necessarily so.›. But I'm not; instead, you're the one that's advocating a stronger statement than the other media are making.

In an attempt to do your research for you, I looked for historical surveys of terrorist incidents with death tolls, as well as for examples of deadlier terrorist incidents. I found nothing useful either way. So perhaps the other news media simply don't know. Well, fine, but we don't know either. We can't just make up information since we suspect that it goes one way rather than the other. Since you are advocating making claims that you don't know to be true, while I am not, I say that you should provide a reference to a comprehensive survey that ranks this attack deadliest before putting such a phrase in. This is nothing more than simple intellectual integrity, on the part of all of us.

— Toby 06:02 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with Bryan Derksen a few comments back that, as great as a lot of it is, much of the material on 9/11 is out of place in an encyclopedia. Which only goes to show why both Britannica and World Book have issued newsy "yearbook" editions along with their standard encyc. sets for years. Look like a WikiYearbook side project is called for. -- JDG Oct. 3, 2002

On the morning of, I remember hearing one of the tv broadcasters saying that the air force had 'taken care of' the final hijacked plane still in the air. does anyone else remember anything like that? Tubby

No, and it's been more-or-less denied ever since, even though it would have been semi-reasonable to do so at that point, and even though it looks like that's what happened (the official conspiracy theory does not explain the 8-mile debris field).
The one vanishing report I do remember from that day, is of a plane going down in/around Colorado. I suspect it's related to the plane that hit the Pentagon, which is supposed to have been off radar until reappearing over DC.--Kwantus.

We may want to fix edit by 211.28.96.8 (15:23 Nov 9, 2002 September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack). Comments?

"Some people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in the world."

Can somebody point me to a deadlier terrorist attack that ever took place? --mav

depends on your definition of terrorism im sure...Vera Cruz

Exactly. And on what you consider a single attack. And on whether you consider indirect deaths as counting. Perhaps "many people" would be more acceptable? -Martin
Based on our own definition at terrorism. --mav

I'll go check out our definition, but for a discussion of deadlier attacks, Noam Chomsky, for example, argues that the attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant had a far greater death toll in total, so it depends on your definition of terrorism and how you count the deaths. (3 edit conflicts so far.) DanKeshet

"Terrorism refers to the systemic or calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience for purposes of obtaining political goals"
The holocaust would do then. Note that terrorism has an entire section on "Problems with the definition"... -Martin
Using this definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, was the greatest terrorist attacks (calculated use of violence against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience of obtaining political goals) 62.212.110.113 10:29 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Make it something like: "Many people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in history. But this view varies based on how a terrorist attack is defined." and I'll be happy. --mav


It was the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil,

Could this also depend on definition? How big were some of the masacres of Native Americans? http://iss.k12.nc.us/schools/nms/nativeacleansing.htm talks about 4000 deaths in 'removal' from land.
The biggest argument against this is that this removal took place through and by many, many separate acts. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
But that wasn't terrorism. If anything that was either a war or genocide. --mav
More importantly, it wasn't on US soil: the United States not having been formed at that time....-Martin
It fits the above definition of terrorism, but I concede that the US wasn't formed. However, I have could "US soil" be taken to mean soil that is now part of the US? I have heard people say "the Romans once ocupied British soil".

Include section (linking to separate article) on philatelic history of September 11, 2001 (stamps commemorating the events, pictorial cancellations, &c.)? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

My bad... Need sleep :)

But shouldn't the search for "nine eleven" find it? Is it because of the capitalization? What can be done? Zocky 11:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

expletive deleted. See Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible - nine is on the list Martin

I do not understand how anyone can state this was "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in history". What about almost any colonization? The foreign power invades with more powerful technology or in the case of North America, non-native germs, and slaughters the native race. Far more asymetric are the more recent wars launched by the US against Iraq (through 1990s and now in 2003), Central America, Africa (destroying the medicine factory in Sudan, and causing the death of millions), etc etc. Wake up, there were _only_ 3000 people killed. It's terrible but happens daily around the world. The author should have said, "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in AMERICAN history". -evg -

for a definition of asymmetric warfare, see that entry. The colonisation of america wasn't asymmetric by the modern definition, though many events in it would probably qualify as genocide. Also, the entry says single events, which distinguishes 9/11 from protracted wars and battles. Given both those qualifiers, I think that's a balanced intro...

I'm new here, but had a brief and minor comment on the paragraph at the end about the use of the term "nine eleven". Most other major disasters are named for their location -- Hiroshima, Waterloo, etc. I think the adoption of "nine eleven" is a simple consequence of the fact that the act took place in multiple locations, so there was no simple geographical shorthand for the enormity of it. Although the worst damage was in New York, calling it the "WTC disaster" doesn't begin to address everything that happened that day. Catherine

Good point, Catherine.
Btw, there is a discussion at m:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties on the movement of pages to the sep11.wiki site from this one. Martin

The attacks on September 11 were not strictly speaking terrorism, for these reasons:

  • they were not focused strictly on civilian targets, but included the Pentagon and corporations and markets that vend US debt that fund the US military - by the same definitions that have always been used in war, these are military targets, albeit in the WTC's case there was also a lot of collateral damage
  • their primary impact was the physical destruction of infrastructure actually useful in war, that being, the command and financing infrastructure of the USA. if not for various precautions in offsite backup, they could have done serious damage to the US economy - thus this was a serious military attack not a fear-generating exercise
  • even with these precautions and rapid reactions on the part of traders and authorities, the overall impact was estimated at close to US$1T over the next month, and could be said to be much higher if we include present slow growth rates, economic friction introduced by 'national security' measures, and costs of new wars, not to mention risks of diplomatic alienation over same
  • the objective of the attacks, if Al Qaeda was indeed behind them (which is an assertion never proven by any judicial process, and we should note that), was to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. This is certainly a military objective and a very clear and focused one.
  • they were coordinated so effectively as to demonstrate true military capacity.

I submit that this is exactly what is meant by asymmetric warfare, and not what is usually meant by terrorism. Thus the article title could reasonably be 'September 11, 2001, hijackings' or 'September 11, 2001, attack on the USA' but 'terrorist attack' is just biased. History will remember this as the first successful hit of a large scale war fought over normal military objectives and with normal military targets, not an isolated incident involving mostly civilians. Some even say that the Pentagon workers were 'civilians' since they did not carry weapons. This kind of nonsense absolutely boggles the mind. Nor, for the same reasons, was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole a 'terrorist' attack.

The Cole attack was not terrorism but the killing of nearly 3,000 civilians can be nothing other than terrorism. It is very silly to suggest that those people were valid military targets. I thought you were banned? --mav
The Pentagon (and not the WTC) would (certainly) have been a valid military target, but the method of attack was a patent atrocity and plainly illegal. --Daniel C. Boyer

Why not my new definition? -- Taku 03:54 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

For one it was misspelled... mav made it a little clearer. Thanks mav! -- Goatasaur
No problem - is everybody happy now? --mav

"The WTC Towers were constructed almost entirely from steel coated in asbestos, and the attacks released dense clouds of dust into the air of Manhattan. Death usually follows asbestos inhalation only after fifteen years or more - so is possible that other victims of the attacks may die over the decades to come."
I remember either the TV or newspaper specifically saying at the time that the WTC towers didn't contain asbestos, which account is incorrect?

Both! _New York Times_ and/or public-broadcasting coverage in first few weeks clarified that the design called for lots of asbestos, and that this was significant but not complete in construction of the tower that was begun first. The second followed a revised design thru-out, and had at most a very small fraction of the asbestos that the first did. Neither had as much as originally planned. Jerzy 08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am quite sure that naming this article took a great deal of debate and deliberation, however shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks"? They may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. Kingturtle 01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Text moved from the Village pump

RE: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack....shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks"? The attacks may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. Kingturtle 01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Apparently so! Googling reveals that 20,000 "September 11 Attack" pages and 200,000 "September 11 Attacks" pages. 14,000 "9 11 Attack" and 60,000 "9 11 Attacks." Time to move page? --Menchi 06:46 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
I'd suggest being conservative here - there are quite a few pages, and they're linked from all over the place, so a change of name will actually entail a fair bit of work. But if you do move, consider whether "terrorist" and "attack" need capitals... Martin

End of moved text

"September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" looks like a better title to me -- sannse 08:33 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
I've changed it to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks for the above mentioned reasons. Kingturtle 22:15 17 May 2003 (UTC)
But now I realize the seriousness of this change. It might be too overwhelming to change all the associated pages. I think I better changing them all now. It is probably best for me to change them back to the original name, no? Kingturtle 22:25 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Aside from which, the whole matter strikes me as being woefully pedantric. Fortunately, this whole matter seems to have ended on the grounds of difficulty.Arno 04:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The insurance company which insured the WTC didn't think so. They tried to declare it one attack so they only had to pay one settlement while the tower owner declared it two attacks and wanted double the money. It went to court -don't know what happened, though. Rmhermen 12:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah, but we're not an insurance company! Arno 07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:Rmhermen remove every links or information about 6wtc and 7wtc destruction events. (6wtc was partially destroyed by an explosion at 8;04am (I give a link to a short movie in gif) and a link on plane photography that explain the thing. 62.212.110.113 17:49 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone else comment on this? My initial thoughts were that this CIA office business was pure conspiracy theory, but there is that NY Times link that 62 refers to. Unfortunately it is rather vague. Arno 07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
User:62.212.110.113 is pushing a conspiracy theory wherein only a couple buildings were destroyed by the attacking planes and the others were bombed from within possibly by the CIA or other US forces. Also having an office in a 47 story office building hardly makes that entire building a CIA building. Rmhermen 17:01 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:Skeptical Some disinformation or misinformation may have crept into the detailed and well articulated articles relating to the terrorist attack(s). I see little consideration in these discussions regarding the possibility of disinformation, with the notable exception of the French site linked to on the Pentagon-Flight 77 page. July 8, 2003, 3:15 PM Chicago time.

Is there a reason for the capitalisation in the current title of this page ("September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack")? Is this a proper name, by which it is widely known? Or should it be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, or indeed September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Do all the separate events count as a single attack, or as several? Yes, I know moving the page would require lots of redirects to be changed, but I don't mind doing that. -- Oliver P. 08:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, User:Kingturtle questioned the plurality and attempted to move, but didn't go thru with it once he found out the numerous re-Wikification required. --Menchi 08:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I'll move the page to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks if I hear no objections. I'll leave it a week, just to give people plenty of time to respond, because I don't fancy doing all those changes if they're going to have to be changed back again later. :) -- Oliver P. 10:41 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No objection. I'll try to help a little with the wiki-work. Tannin

Capitalization

Should we cap?

  • No cap: because it's not a proper noun, nor is it established
  • Cap: First World War-like? (but world war isn't used here literally anyway, but like a given name)

--Menchi 11:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: Other weapons used on at least one flight included bombs and air spray.

I am not aware that any other weapons were confirmed. I think I remember that they might have threatened to have a bomb. I am not sure. And what is "air spray"? Rmhermen 16:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Phone calls from both Flight 93 and Flight 11 made references to bombs being being displayed , probably to scare people into submission. It is possible that the one on Flight 93 was a phony. Also, according to phone calls from Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong, the hijackers on Flight 11 used some kind of air spray to discourage passengers from entering the first-class area where they were. See the Flight 11 article. Arno 06:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be plural "Attacks"? --Jiang 23:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User:Kingturtle and User:Dante Alighieri said they were gonna change (separately). I don't know what happened. Too many already singular links I guess. --Menchi 23:21, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and move? --Jiang

You could, but even though I don't know what happened with Dante Alighieri (I believe he was the second guy), I know that Kingturtle started to change and realized the multitude of the 911 linking web (in the hundreds), so gave up. If you still want to do it, give it a try, and if you need help, try the Pump. I'll tell you now that many people won't bother to help you! (Including me, sorry, I'm not really interested in 911 enough to fix it. How selfcentric of me). The title could use an improvement, but we may not have the manpower to make that improvement. --Menchi 23:56, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
Although, I wonder, wouldn't just a simple tweak of the redirects (can't be more than a dozen) do it? But I don't know what happened technically. --Menchi 00:00, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think I can take care of the redirects. I won't change the wrong links though. I think we can live with those redirecting. This article and related subjects needs a lot of cleaning up (bad formatting, etc). --Jiang 00:05, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

done

We need to rename/merge (some of them dont seen too well written) all these subpages. How should they be renamed? September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/World economic effects to World economic effects of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks seems a bit lengthy.

See also: Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Footer template

--Jiang 08:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[11] Wasn't this person released later than January 2002? Evil saltine 18:41, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the definition of "hospital". The article says that she was tranfered to "Rusk Rehabilitation Center" sometime before April. It then goes on to call that facility a hospital. But USA Today and the Today Show ran stories on Jan. 18 about the last survivor being released from the hospital (probably others but that is what I found online). Rmhermen 19:31, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

911 name

I'd like to put something in the article about how 911 is the emergency services phone number in the USA, since this is a reason people refer to the attacks as 9/11 instead of September 11, but I can't think of a graceful way to do it.

Whatever you do along these lines, i urge you be sure to acknowledge that their oral versions provide more distinction than the silent slash would suggest. I think that before 9/11 occurred, pronouncing "911" as "nine one one" was nearly universal while pronouncing "9/11" that way was a bizarre affectation if it occurred. Even tho the coincidence is undeniably striking, many of us don't pronounce (let along write) them the same, and may even comment when others blur the distinction. Jerzy 08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see no mention here of the plane that went down in rural Pennsylvania the same day. Is this due to oversight or otherwise? I myself do not know much more than that it happened and so do not want to make the changes myself. -- zandperl 05:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's there. Look at the second paragraph of Overview. -- VV 05:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tried to update the casualty numbers but there may be problem. The new number for the World Trade Center is 2752 to which we add the 10 hijackers which I think they do not count, so 2762. Then we subtract the 157 casualties on the airplanes which hit the Towers because we list them separately, so a total of 2605 who died on the ground at the WTC. However the article used to list the number as 2650, and the new number is supposed to be 40 less than the old which would give 2610. I think the 2605 is probably correct. Rmhermen 14:42, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

After the U.S. attack removed the Taliban from power in many parts of Afghanistan, a videotape was discovered abandoned in Kabul, the Afghan capital, which showed bin Laden discussing the attacks in language that seems to show he intended to indicate his foreknowledge.

There must be a better way to right this sentence. If I could come up with it myself I would have already changed it. Any ideas? Rmhermen 00:04, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Separate it into two sentences. The first clause is only remotely connected to the rest of it. --Jiang 02:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New section

I made a new section. It describes about how the attack was being planned and the movements of the hijacker pilots, the "brawny men", and the financiers back in Europe and the UAE. WhisperToMe 09:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed this section from the page. It is certainly not NPOV and I wonder if it is even necessary.

"Columnist for The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, also attempts to deceive the American public, "Their terrorism is not aimed at reversing any specific US policy. Indeed, they made no demands." The demands that America stop specific foreign polices in the Middle East prove Friedman is lying."

Any comments? Rmhermen 22:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that we redirect people to a sub-page on September 11 responsibilty that is shorter than the responsibility section on the main page! Should they be merged to eliminate out of synch editing or should the main page be summarized (which I would prefer)? Rmhermen 15:36, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

"There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers." Where do claims like this come from? Robert Müller made it quite clear there was zero evidence.[12] Not surprising given that at least nine of The Nineteen were still alive on 9-12.[13] Was he lying, undercutting his case, in order to pitch the 1984 state? Or is "the final list..." stuff some of the ravings and delusions extracted by Mr Kilovolt and Mme Thumbscrew?

OK , a few replies. The Mueller interview referred to in 2 was dated April 2002. The revelations involving the hijackers came well after this date.

As for claims that some of the hijackers being alive, well, I suppose that some of them could have been flung clear of the explosion when those planes hit the WTC, and survived their 70-80+ floor fall by landing on a a large pile of mattresses in a truck that happened to be driving by when the attack took place. Alternately, I suppose the UFO that allegedly appeared at the World Trade Centre after the attacks could have dived in and saved them. Perhaps the owner of the Devil's face pulled a few Satanic strings and resurrected them. But you know what? I don't think any of that happened. In the words of Charles Dickens, the hijackers are as dead as doornails. Cremated doornails at that.

Ditto with the Flight 77 "survivors" and the Flight 93 "survivors". The references in the welfarestate site are given, but I don't think that their owners checked them out very thoroughly, or sought any updates.

If you must cite this kind of thing, then I suggest that you do so on the September 11 Rumours and misinformation page. Arno 03:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First i like to express my sorrow for the loss of life during this attack on the people of the united states. Secondly i sincerely think that a lot of people don't believe the official documented history of this event. Like after pearl harbour the american people got involved in an international struggle following the attack on americans. Take this into consideration: If the media would have announced the perpetrator to be from switserland probably the us airforce would have retaliated against the swiss cities and blowing up terrorists in caves in the alps.The media is a powerfull tool in shaping peoples opinion. It is not to late to bring the perpetrators to justice and to correct the course of action taken after 911. All it takes is some investigation and a suspicious mind to find the truth. I know because i did just that. The united states can be a powerfull force in the world to put things right only if the people want it. The us armed forces is the most powerfull force in the world today. If you compare the armed forces to a gun you have to ask: who is pulling the trigger and where is the barrel pointing at?

2wtccrash.JPG

Image:2wtccrash.JPG
United Airlines Flight 175, moments before crashing into The South tower of the World Trade Center

Do we have permission to use this photo? There isn't even any attribution so we could not even begin to pretend it is 'fair use'. --mav 05:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It came from the Chinese Wikipedia. I guess I should have put a note of attribution in the first place X_X WhisperToMe 03:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anthere said that the person who uploaded it on the original French Wikipedia never provided a desc, so out it goes... WhisperToMe 18:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

the term terrorist is POV

Yes, the events of September 11, 2001 were henious and caused great pain and hardship. Nevertheless, the term terrorist is POV. The definition changes through time, and can be debated. President Reagan said it best: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." He said this when defending the actions of people he supported who were accused of being terrorists. Terrible acts of this kind that you support, you can call freedom fighting. The word terrorist can only exist with a POV.

I realize it is difficult to change all the related pages, but they should really all be renamed September 11, 2001 attacks.

P.S. No, I do not think the attackers were freedom fighters. But I don't think they were terrorists either. Terrorist is a label placed. Kingturtle 01:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what what would you call the ,er, attackers? And , also, what would your definition of the word terrorist be? Arno
This is bizarre--I've never actually heard anyone (outside Wikipedia) argue that they weren't terrorists. Purposely killing civilians on a large scale is a fairly canonical example of terrorism. I've heard people claim that the terrorism was justified, but never that it wasn't terrorism at all. --Delirium 20:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do we want to change Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Terrorist bombing of Dresden in World War II? The Fellowship of the Troll 22:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page has a formatting problem. At least with Mozilla browser, if the browser window is not wide enough the table of contents is on top of the image.

Moving pages

You may not move this page w/o moving the associated talk page and fixing the many double redirects linking to the new article. Why singular, not plural? The phrase "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" is the overwhelming convention used. Please make your case before moving and move it properly if you do, or it will be moved back again. --Jiang 23:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See above. "Terrorist" has taken on an inherently negative meaning, just like the word "murder". It is not a simple technical term. If we were to talk about "Israeli terrorism" when Israel bombs civilian centres in the occupied territories, people would object too. So please move it back. --Wik 14:52, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why that's a problem. Murdering an office-building full of civilians is a canonical example of terrorism. The fact that that has inherently negative connotations is hardly surprising, as most people consider killing civilian inhabitants of an office building an inherently bad thing. Are you going to argue that we can't say Charles Manson had anything to do with murder now, because that would be characterizing him in an inherently negative way? Should we neutrally say that he caused the lives of some people to end? --Delirium 19:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We can't pass off moral judgments as fact, even if they are held by "most people". Some people do justify those attacks, so we can't use language that implies condemnation. Those who justify it don't call it terrorism. If this article is not moved, anyone might as well describe Israeli or U.S. military actions as (state) terrorism. Remember the U.S. killed some 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan alone, and an additional 10,000 in Iraq. --Wik 20:56, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
So we can't call Charles Manson a murderer either, because that implies condemnation? I don't see the difference. In this case, it's held by nearly all people. Even Iran calls it "terrorism" (they imply the US brought it on itself, but still use the term "terrorism"). "State terrorism", by contrast, is far more controversial. --Delirium 21:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We are to report facts, not make moral judgments. Why call Charles Manson a murderer and not George W. Bush, who is responsible for many more killings? We should only report factually who killed whom, and let the readers make their own moral judgment. --Wik 22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

What do those who disagree with the label "terrorist" call these attacks then? I don't see how these attacks don't meet our definition of terrorism - "calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, usually for the purpose of obtaining political or religious goals." --Jiang 21:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Simply "attacks". The title "September 11, 2001 Attacks" is absolutely sufficient and unambiguous. I think "our" definition of terrorism is incomplete, missing the inherent negativism. The term is not used in this merely technical sense; the actual "terrorists" rarely see themselves as "terrorists". --Wik 22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera uses "terrorist" [14]. Can you show me links of how the Arab/leftist media refers to these attacks? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" and terror: "1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>" What's wrong with this definition? --Jiang 23:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, many don't use the word "terrorist". Just do a Google search for "September 11 attacks". What's wrong with the definition is that it misses the fact that people only call those actions terrorism that they want to condemn and not those that they support. I wouldn't mind if we were to use your definition consistently, but I have a feeling you may be the first to protest when Israeli or U.S. actions were to be described as terrorist. --Wik 23:39, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sure many people don't use the word "terrorist", but more people do. I would like us to use a term commonly used elsewhere. Proof that the other name is common must be given.

Whenever a state's action is deemed 'terrorist', we should acknowledge the claim that it is state terrorism. I find it only derogatory for states to be "terrorist" when they have armed forces at their disposal, removing the necessity to attack civilian targets to make their voice heard. Calling an organization "terrorist" only has negative connotations in that attacking and frightening civilians is wrong, not because the word is obscene or innaccurate. --Jiang 01:41, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, many do use the word terrorist.
The events of Sep 11 were terrorist by definition (as pointed out above), and I see no need to remove the word on the grounds that are, at best, pedantric. It's like what Delirium said - where do we stop if this starts? What would be call the acts of Charles Manson, or a peodophile, or anyone else involved in a major crime? It's a particularly ridiculous form of censorship, and we can do without that here. Arno 04:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We should call things by factual NPOV terms. The Britannica also has its article at "September 11 attacks". The word "Terrorist", even if it were NPOV, would be unnecessary in the title. --Wik
It doesn't matter if the title has unnecessary words. It's not up to us to coin the name of these attacks. We go by what's most common. --Jiang 22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, there is no proper name for it. There are endless possible permutations and not one that stands out, so we can choose a concise and NPOV term, and "terrorist" is both unnecessary and POV. --Wik 22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
There are over 100 definitions of "terrorist", and this attack includes all of them. Include "Terrorist". Tempshill 22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the problem to do with inconsistant use of the term? Do we want to rename the Allied Carpet bombing articles (like the Dresden Bombing pages) terrorist bombings? After all, they were deliberate attacks on civilian centers - the problem is that if we apply the word 'terrorist' to one group of people, even if everyone agrees, we are implicitly saying that attacks which do not have the word terrorist in the them are not, or are somehow on a different moral level. Better to avoid unecessary and inherently POV language across the board than have to fight the battle of someone picking every attack on a group of civilians and adding the word terrorist to the title. The Fellowship of the Troll 01:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Speaking objectively, the September 11 attacks fulfilled every definition of a "terrorist" attack. The word is emotionally loaded, yes, but so what? They were, objectively, terrorist attacks, and they are so called by nearly all our readers. I don't agree that it's extraneous and unnecessary. If your fear is that we will have a Wikipedia-wide move-war over adding "terrorist" to attacks of some sort whose terrorism is disputed: That war can be fought over those articles, and, with time, it will be fought, whether or not we label this one a "terrorist" attack. If any incident qualifies to be called a terrorist attack, it's this one. Tempshill 01:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It fulfills every technical definition, but so does Dresden, yet calling the latter terrorism will never go through, because the term has an inherent negative implication and for that reason alone many people will not want to associate it with what they consider part of a fight for a good cause (against the Nazis). But this is a subjective POV, and people who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause should have the same right to reject this disparaging term. --Wik 02:19, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
This is doublespeak. Your logic is flawed. By your argument, we should also go through and get rid of the term "massacre" everywhere it is used in Wikipedia, because it is disparaging. I don't care whether it is disparaging -- it is accurate, and so is, without dispute, the use of "terrorist" in this case. "People who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause" don't have the "right" to reject a term that they consider disparaging if the use of it is accurate. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well then other people don't have this right either. So, "Terrorist Bombing of Dresden" will be OK with you? If not, it is you who's doing the doublespeak. And yes, "massacre" should be avoided too, except when it's part of a firmly established name for an event (e.g. Amritsar Massacre); history hasn't settled yet on a similarly fixed name for 9/11, so we can't use the title "September 11 Massacre", just as we can't use "September 11 Terrorist Attacks" - both are POV. --Wik 15:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? RickK 04:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The media doesn't capitalize. I don't see why should we. --Jiang

Perhaps there should also be a picture of the twin towers before 9/11? At the moment all the pictures are of the aftermath of the attacks. It would emphasise the scale of destruction in a very visual way. Especially useful for those of us who aren't American and so don't auctomatically know what they looked like. Fabiform 18:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could you discuss the new title here instead of making all these moves ? PomPom

I was just editing the page to prevent further moves...

Again, a move is not appropriate unless you fix those gazillion double redirects. Please do not move until consensus emerges on this page to change the status quo. --Jiang 22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have already fixed most of them. --Wik 22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Wik can be an annoying bugger sometimes, but this time he is right. Tannin 22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even if he is right, he should refrain from moving pages until he has convinced others that he is right.--Jiang 23:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
He isn't right, and Jiang is correct. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" has 7500 more hits on google than "September 11, 2001 attacks": [15], but "September 11, 2001 attacks" (same exact phrase) is used on Encarta and Britannica (Columbia doesn't have an article, but refers to them as "terrorist attack". --Jiang 05:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Bush administration makes the following claim in their recent 42-page defense of illegal domestic spying: "On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network launched the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history." This doesn't refer to a terrorist attack, so they are saying that Sept 11, 2001 was the deadliest foreign attack in history, but I think that is wrong. Surely there were Revolutionary war attacks that killed more people at one time. The war of 1812 surely had high casualties. I have been searching, but so far have not found any hard numbers. Strange... Randwolfe 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 3

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article Title

There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. Arno 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Tannin

The Word "Terrorist"

Err .... but I better point out that it is not pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a type of action, it describes a type of judgemet about that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. Tannin
Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I only said it was terrorist by any technical definition that ignores the judgemental content of the word. Otherwise, will you agree to call the Dresden bombings terrorist, or Israeli bombings of civilian areas in Palestine? This would be just as "accurate". --Wik 18:26, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I will agree to have this same debate on each bombing you cite, yes, but not to make a sweeping declaration that nothing (or everything) must be called "terrorist" or "massacre" or "murder" because these words are judgmental. Tempshill 19:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We should be consistent. Either we avoid the term generally or we use it in every case where the technical definition applies. --Wik 20:12, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Encylopedias are not about technical definitions, they are about common usage. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What does common usage mean, the common usage of the commissars of the corporate media, or the usage of the common man. The view of the one billion of the world's Muslims is more common than those of the 1/4 billion Americans. I am American and I don't consider an attack on a military target like the Pentagon "terrorist". And as far as civilian casualties - Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Japan, the bombing of Hanoi...are these all terrorist actions as well? -- HectorRodriguez 02:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interlude

Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sheesh - that last suggestion was certainly Canutelike. Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After Interlude

The arguments for terrorist have all been made to the point where I feel anything I write would be redundant. These were obviously terrorist attacks; as mentioned on Talk:Osama bin Laden, even bin Laden calls them terrorist. The comparison to Dresden, Israel, etc., only serve to underscore this fact, which is to say, seeking to call such things terrorist in no way alters the terrorist nature of other acts, but in fact reinforces it. The argument goes something like: If blowing up a passenger bus in Tel Aviv is an act of terrorism, then isn't the Israeli military's raid on Jenin also because of so-and-so similarities? By analogy, consider (say) an issue in the California recall election. While called by some auto registration fees, others called those fees a car tax. The same argument could be made: How is that not too a tax, just like, say, the income tax? This does not function as an argument for not calling the income tax a tax because tax is "controversial" or "emotive"; rather, it makes it clear that the income tax is a tax, and puts forth a (potentially controversial) argument for extending the term tax to other fees. But it would put forth a POV, the view which accepts this parallel, to have titles such as "Jenin terrorist raid" and "Dresden terrorist bombing", but in no way is POV to call the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks exactly what they were. -- VV 01:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're mistaken on several points. 1) Actually, Bin Laden said this: "They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice." Does this sound as if he accepts this term? When accused of terrorism, he may play along and say something like "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists." But other than in response to such questions he does not see himself as a terrorist. 2) Wrong analogies. No one denies the income tax is a tax. The controversy here only starts when the word is to be applied to things which can be easily argued to be substantially different (such as user fees). But you have not made a case for how Dresden is substantially different from 9/11. Calling it terrorism is POV in both cases. If 9/11 is supposed to be "objectively" terrorism, then Dresden and Jenin must be too. You'd have to make up some arbitrary definition to make it apply to one and not the other. --Wik 01:42, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the cases of Dresden and Jenin, but were civilians intentionally targetted in those cases, like that of 9/11? If so, then I'd be fine with calling it terrorism. Because, there's nothing at all arbitrary about that definition. Again, I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th. I'm talking about a real definition, one that you're going to stand behind, not "well a couple nutcases think it's fine to kill innocent people," because those nutcases aren't going to be reading Wikipedia and even if they did I really don't give a s**t about them. Anthony DiPierro 04:54, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Terrorist should be in the title. As Anthony says 'I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th.' : ChrisG
I challenge you to come up with a definition of "incident in which a number of passenger airliners were hijacked and used as weapons to destroy and seriously damage buildings" that does not apply to September 11th, but I still don't think that needs to be in the title of the article if there's a reason to leave it out. Onebyone 11:41, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not passenger airliners, but planes used as projectiles against military and non-military targets, discounting the idiot who crashed his micro-light into the Whitehouse and think about a small nation who is sending unarmed troups to Irak, Japan. Seriously damage buildings, cruisers, minesweepers, etc. Webhat 05:13, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Uhm, the Wik quote above from U/OBL is in english. He doesn't seem to speak english in any of the Al Jazeera tapes I've seen. Should we not also be cautious about translation issues? For example, are mujahadeen being translated as "soldiers", "warriors", or terrorists? I'm not saying it's one or the other, but that translation issues can play a major role, and we have to work harder than normal to find equivalent terms when tranlating languages, which may have different POV terms than english. Ronabop 08:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Google Hits

"september 11" - 3,940,000 (I think we can safely throw this one out as incidental - 151.204.210.18)
Very much so, the September 11 in this range of articles could mean anything from the terrorist attacks to the birthday of someone's pet budgie, as well as sentences such as "Last September, 11 cars were sold." Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Potential titles

"september 11, 2001" - 2,220,000
"september 11, 2002" - 384,000 (for comparison)
"september 4, 2002" - 199,000 (more comparison)
"september 11th" - 1,390,000 (this one too --Wik)
"september 4th" - 121,000 (more comparison)
"events of september 11" - 472,000
"Attack on America" - 316,000
"Attack on America" September 11 - 76,600
"september 11 attacks" - 289,000
"events of september 11, 2001" - 139,000
"september 11 terrorist attacks" - 125,000
"september 11th, attacks" - 67,800
"september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 40,800
"september 11, 2001 attacks" - 30,200
"september 11th, terrorist attacks" - 28,700
"September 11: Attack on America" - 1,760
"september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 1,100
"september 11th, 2001 attacks" - 1,060

but...Pfortuny 20:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(BTW, what about titles that have 11 September in them.... or shouldn't I ask?) Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"11 september" - 1,680,000 (including German results)
"11 september 2001" - 402,000
"11 september 2002" - 83,500
"11 september 2000" - 36,900
"11 september 2001 attacks" - 3,740
"11 september attacks" - 24,300
"11-9 attacks" - 119 (oh... that was neat ^^)

Now the yyyy-mm-dd format (used in East Asia and other countries... I think)

"2001-09-11" - 352,000
"2002-09-11" - 522,000 (what's so special about that date? Maybe just more people on line)
"2000-09-11" - 216,000
"2004-01-24" - 223,000
"2001-09-11 attacks" - 20

Sabbut 14:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I guess I should not have asked. Arno 11:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll on page title

Feel free to change your position at any time based on new arguments.

  • September 11, 2001 attacks
  1. Tannin 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 18:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 19:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (I would also drop the 2001)
  5. Lou I 19:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. Arwel 20:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. WormRunner 21:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  9. Kokiri
  10. Jiang 00:24,18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (other encyclopedias use it, but count this vote and disregard the other provided that terrorist not be removed from the text)
  11. Meelar As long as the word "terrorist" is in the article, we don't need it in the title
  12. ☮ Eclecticology 01:05, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
  13. mav This whole thread is operating on a hugely misinformed assumption; that NPOV applies to titles. It cannot, nor should it ever. If it did, then titles would have to be very long and near impossible to remember. We have to choose just one term for every title and that is inherently a POV process. The convention we have decided to use in these cases is common usage among English speakers with caveats for ambiguity and unreasonable offensiveness. So if a term happens to have "terrorist" or "massacre" in its most common name, then we use that term as the page title. With that said, it does appear, that, in this case, the word "terrorist" is neither more common, nor needed for disambiguation for this title. On that basis, and on that basis alone, should it be removed. As a matter of fact, this may work for most other cases where "terrorist" is in the title (but not so for "massacre").
    This sounds like grounds for voting for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks! Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    Sorry - no it isn't. It is an argument for following common usage and not having titles longer than they need to be. --mav
  14. Dpbsmith No need for the word "terrorist" to appear in the title. Doesn't make the article any easier to find.
  15. Jade Hamblyn 02:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  16. .·. Optim 02:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
  17. Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  18. The term terrorism is POV. Kingturtle 06:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    That is irrelevant. See my message above. --mav
  19. Should be at the most likely to be searched for term. It's nothing to do with POV. Secretlondon 07:32, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    Look at google hits. The other term is searched for more often.
  20. Bill 12:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  21. The Fellowship of the Troll 13:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)Searches isn't a problem, we can have as many redirects as we can eat. The term is POV, and the precident of 'this was so terrible that POV doesn't matter here' will cause problems elsewhere if we apply it fairly.
    Those of you claiming the term is POV really should explain that somewhere on the talk page. I can think of no definition of terrorist for which the 9/11 incident does not apply. Starters would be coming up with one. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  22. Toby Bartels 00:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) -- This is among the options listed, with the term "terrorist" being the main point of contention. In all, I know of 5 points of contention in the title, and I agree with this version only on 3 or 4 of them.
  23. Lord Emsworth
  24. Jeroenvrp 03:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  25. ChrisO 17:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) The description "terrorist" seems a bit redundant, to be honest - everyone knows what category the attacks fall into, surely?
  26. UtherSRG I'd like to vote below, but mav's argument is most compelling. Thanks mav!
  27. "terrorist" is controversial and unnecessary in the title. The article (or a linked article) should explain the controversy. --Ellmist 03:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  28. Tompagenet 17:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  29. MikeCapone 04:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  30. Sabbut 14:19, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  31. Nico 18:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  32. Infrogmation 07:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  33. HectorRodriguez 02:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  34. Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) (ohne terrorist)
  35. pir 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  36. Richardchilton 07:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  37. RickK 03:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'm sure many of you are surprised at my vote, but believe it or not, I have no problem with NPOV. I would object to the removal of the word "terrorist" from the article itself. Another question -- has Tim Starling not proven that HectorRodriguez and Richardchilton are the same person? If so, sock puppet votes should be discarded.
  38. Kpalion 13:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
  1. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) This sets a silly precedent for political correctness, in my view.
  2. PMA 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rmhermen 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Eloquence 19:10, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (if used consistently for CIA-sponsored terrorism as well)
  6. WhisperToMe 19:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Maximus Rex 00:20, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jiang 00:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (see conditions above)
  10. Dori
  11. VV 00:45, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (I'd be open to dropping the 2001 however)
  12. Ruhrjung 13:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - me too ;)
  13. Binky 07:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC). Attacks is already point of view, may as way go all the way.
  14. Crusadeonilliteracy 12:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  15. Jordan Langelier
  16. jengod 06:36, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) It's what Osama would want.
    Hmmm, voting the right way for the wrong reasons....Arno 07:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  17. ChrisG Political correctness gone mad.
    Hear hear!! Arno 23:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  18. Ilyanep Really.
  19. Lirath Q. Pynnor Who doesn't think those were terrorist attacks? Whether American, Israeli, Afghani, Palestinian, Iraqi, or Saudi Arabian in origin -- surely they were still terrorists.
  20. Ryan_Cable 14:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001
  1. Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Webhat 05:03, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jack 01:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) and I'd like to give a big ol' "Me Too!" out to ADP (I call it "9/11")
  4. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • "Don't Care"
  1. —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:10, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) - I don't think it matters as long as the one that isn't chosen becomes a redirect page to the other.
  2. Moriori 20:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC). I tend to agree, but also support Anthony DiPierro re the word terrorist remaining in the text itself. The key for me is the answer to the following question. "Were the people who carried out the attacks terrorists"?
  3. Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note that this vote is solely for the title. I don't think the word terrorist should be taken out of the text itself. If there are credible arguments that the attacks were not terrorism, they can be included. In any case, that is a separate vote. Anthony DiPierro 19:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the poll

I think it is a nice thing to have exceptions in any policy, and this one seems good enough for me. This explains my vote above. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that calls for the term terrorist be applied consistently are politics in a thin disguise. It is fortunate that in this case, specifying "attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks" is sufficient to identify what the article is about, so I think that in the interests of avoiding a spree of people adding "terrorist" to various articles in order to make political points about government-sponsered terrorism we should just do the simple thing. Furthermore, talking about "the" definition of terrorism is disingenuous, since various groups have produced different definitions according to their biases and their aims, to reflect the different things that they mean when they talk about terrorism. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think calling them merely "attacks" dilutes the reality of the situation. Specifying "September 11, 2001" is likewise sufficient to identify what the article is about. As for "the" definition of terrorism, Wikipedia is based on common usage, isn't it? What this event is referred to as should be the only question. Even if it definitively wasn't terrorism, if it's overwhelmingly referred to as such that's the title we should use. We still call it Manifest Destiny, don't we? Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is not "overwhelmingly" called terrorism. --Wik 20:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
It is overwhelmingly regarded as a terrorist act. --mav 02:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nor is it "overwhelmingly" called "September 11, 2001 attacks." If you noticed, I didn't vote for either. Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No one made that claim. There is no "overwhelmingly" used name, so we should just describe it in a concise and NPOV manner. --Wik 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear that neither title is NPOV. And my point about "overwhelmingly" was to defend the statement that definitions are meaningless. Anthony DiPierro 21:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree they would be meaningless if there were an overwhelmingly used name. But there isn't, so they aren't. And I don't see what's not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks". --Wik 21:23, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I still say they're meaningless. But I guess I can't use the Manifest Destiny argument any more. In any case, I find it hard to see a definition of terrorism that doesn't include this event. Do you know of one? And what is not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks" is that it implies that the attacks were not terrorist, especially when you type in "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and get redirected. Finally, I don't see the problem with using "September 11, 2001." Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The most common definition of "terrorism" implies condemnation, just like "murder" means an unjustified killing and those 9who support killings in certain circumstances won't ever call those killings "murder"; likewise those who support those attacks don't call them "terrorism". So the common definition doesn't include this event for those who support it. As to the other point, while not every "attack" has to be a "terrorist attack", every "terrorist attack" is also an "attack", so the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" does not imply that they were not terrorist. By the same logic, your proposed version "September 11, 2001" would imply that there wasn't even an attack! --Wik 01:12, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the WTC attack was justified? Does anyone on here support this? Should we stop calling murderers murderers because hey somewhere someone thought what they did was OK? As to not implying that it is not terrorist, changing the title from "terrorist attack" to "attack" because some nutball out there thinks that it's fine to intentionally kill innocent victims most certainly implies that it's not terrorist. Implying that it is not an attack does not at all follow from the same logic. You just don't understand my logic. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a United States "news" channel. Let's try to just be a little objective about this. If we label this page with the word "terrorist" included then all other instances of "terrorist" attacks covered in the WP should also have their names changed, including "terrorist" acts perpetrated by the United States(plenty of those). So why not just keep it simple. By the way someone whose opinion differs from yours is not automatically a "nutball". Its not like the U.S. hasn't done anything to upset the people that attack it. Jade Hamblyn 05:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. If you have such an instance, then go ahead, label it terrorism. No, someone whose opinion differs from mine is not automatically a "nutball." But someone who defends the murders which took place on 9/11 is. I don't care how much you upset someone. Killing thousands of innocent civilians is not the answer. Anthony DiPierro 05:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The US government, over and over again, has targeted civilians. Putting aside events like My Lai, which they attribute to people not following orders (although it seems a natural consequence of the operation it was part of Wheeler Walawa), the US government has targeted civilians over and over again - Dresden and other German cities, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Tokyo (and other Japanese cities), the bombing of Hanoi, the attacks on dams to cause floods and famine in Korea and Vietnam and so on and so forth. The idea that the US has never targeted civilians is ludicrous. By the way, the CIA was who brought over the sheikh who plotted the first bombing of the WTC and the CIA with MAK is who trained and armed Al Qaeda to fight in Afghanistan against the communist government with. Please spare us your horror about killing innocent civilians, as there is no government in the world currently which has more blood on it's hands then the USA. -- HectorRodriguez 05:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

9/11/01 Was indeed a terrorist attack. It should be identified as such. Political correctness should not be our goal. Our goal is to be subjective and this is a 'terrorist' attack! Ilyanep 16:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dates

The designation as "9/11" is so universal that I wonder whether the title shouldn't use this term rather than "September 11." Also, the title should distinguish the article from articles about any other events that might have happened on the same day. I don't think "terrorist" helps to do this, but I wonder whether "World Trade Center" shouldn't be in the title. Dpbsmith 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The bastards attacked the Pentagon too, so if you mention the WTC, you gotta mention the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Right - the Pentagon is the Jan Brady of September 11 PMA 05:29, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
As for universality... in Spain, where I live, people call the fatidical date "11-S", and few people know what "9/11" means. IMO, "9/11" should be a redirect... or the title of an article about the fraction "nine elevenths". I'll stick with "September 11"... no need to abbreviate it and confuse readers whose main language isn't English. Sabbut 13:18, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
But this is the English version of the encyclopedia. Why can't we confuse readers whose main language isn't English? Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bear in mind that 9/11 is the US date format. Elsewhere, (eg down under) the format is 11/9. September 11 is rather less ambiguous and more universal. BTW, if you mention the Pentagon and the WTC, let's not forget Flight 93. Arno 07:59, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Flight 93 was part of the attack on the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 02:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Flight 93 was supposed to strike the Capitol. See the Flight 93 article and September 11 (terrorist) attacks artivle ("Recent statements and revelations"). The terrorists called it the "faculty of law" in their communications. The Pentagon had a different code name. Arno 06:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fine, attack on the Pentagon, WTC, and the Capitol. Just more reason not to use such a title. September 11, 2001 is the only reasonable title right now. Anthony DiPierro 13:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More general discussion

I think we should be thinking about this in a global sense and avoid possibly nationalistic notions of the "universality" of a term to describe this event, as people from different countries refer to it using a multitude of terms. The name of an article referring to this event should just be concise.--Jade Hamblyn 03:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Anthony wrote: All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. OK. Let's go with that, shall we? Hmmm ... that will give us:

  • Tokyo B-29 terrorist raids
  • Hiroshima terrorist atom bomb
  • British terrorist bombing of Germany, 1941-45
  • V1 buzz bomb terrorist weapon
  • The terrorist Blitz, London, 1940
  • Rolling Thunder terrorist raids on Hanoi
  • Indonesian terrorist invasion of East Timor
  • The Hungarian terrorist Uprising

Shall I go on? Tannin

Apparently you don't understand what the word indisputably means. Let's take Hiroshima. The US govt claims that this was targetted as a military base. So using the term terrorist is disputed.

Furthermore, labelling as such doesn't necessarily mean in the title. In the case of 9/11, it was already in the title, and is just as popular in the title as not, so I don't have a problem with it.

I obviously don't feel that "terrorist" has to be in the title. Actually my suggestion, September 11, 2001, which no one has even commented on, doesn't contain the word terrorist in it. Isn't the word "attack" POV? Maybe we should just September 11, 2001 self-defense... Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do not forget please
  • Soviet terror camps
  • Terrorist politics of Stalin
  • Communist terrorist politics

Shall I go on? Pfortuny 14:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However, probably the only way you could disagree the sep 2001 incident was a terrorist attack would be if you wished you were personally carrying out the next emulation of it. This raises interesting questions regarding the whole NPOV theory. Crusadeonilliteracy


Thankfully, not every word that we agree could legitimately descibe the event needs to be in the title, noone is arguing that it should be Awful, horrific, tragic, terrorist attacks (Sept 11). The Fellowship of the Troll 15:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This goes for lots of things, Warsaw Pact is the opposite of Warsaw Treaty. I've never heard of anybody signing a peace pact... but if you ever want to get into a treaty with the Devil... Terror is POV, however terrorists are described in one of the many Geneva pacts. AFAIK freedom fighter/terrorist can stand in a busy street and blow himself up and be considered a soldier in an armed conflict, by international law, if he announces that he is a member of blah army before he starts shooting/exploding at the military target. And ofcourse his leaders have to have informed the enemy that they are at war. Perhaps it should be September 11, 2001 Horiffic acts of War. Webhat 04:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
But it is commonly accepted that 9/11 was terrorism. Nobody's saying to rename WWII to Hitler's terrorism tries to 'perfect' the world. In any case, this is getting way too far. Ilyanep 19:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Justification for one pollee's vote

Since I'm in the poll, I should summarise my reasons.

Short version:

  1. The shorter title is at least as common as the longer title.
  2. Shorter titles, when disambiguous, are a Good Thing.
  3. Titles should be restrained in their implicit claims.

Long version:

  1. The attacks were definitely terrorist.
  2. However, calling them terrorist without attribution is POV.
  3. However, mav is right that article standards of POV can't apply to titles.
  4. This is why we fix arbitrary naming conventions, although they are of little help here.
    1. The default naming convention is common usage.
    2. However, common usage in this case can't make the decision.
      1. Someday we may have a fixed, standardised name (like St. Valentine's Day Massacre), but we don't have that now.
      2. While Google indicated a preference, the difference was below any threshold of trusthing Google to report general usage.
    3. We have no specialised naming convention for this situation.
  5. But there are some good naming principles that we can apply.
    1. Shorter names will almost always be used more often than longer names.
    2. NPOV can apply in a lesser sense, in calling for titles to be moderate.
  6. These principles, while not universal, can help us decide to remove "terrorist".

My position is explained more fully on the wikiEN-L thread.

-- Toby Bartels 01:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I voted for September 11, 2001 for most of the same reasons (except I disagree with 2, and 4.2 doesn't apply). We do have a clearly most commonly used and unambiguous title. Anthony DiPierro 06:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist Attacks

The attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There is no doubt for that! And I hope it will never happen again. But the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" is shorter and better. There is really no need to add the word Terrorist, since everyone knows it is terrorism. Optim 01:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But mention of it being terrorism should not be removed from the text. --Jiang
If it is NPOV, yes ("it is generally accepted in USA and most parts of the world that these attacks were terrorist in nature"). Citing quotes of politicians saying that these attacks were terrorist would be great. (note: I haven't really read the article). Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Calling it terrorist is NPOV. As you said yourself, the attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There's no serious dispute over whether or not the attacks were terrorist. They were. There's no need to qualify the statement. In and of itself it is a fact. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, if the standard is to exclude 'what everybody knows' the page would just be called "September 11". Jordan Langelier
No. in Chile they use this date for another political event. Also, we already have a September 11 article. Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To extend on this , "September 11" is too vague and could apply for any event indicated in the September 11 article. Arno
We don't have an article for September 11, 2001, though. Actually, we do, it just points to this page already. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't really agree with the main title of the article being just a date. We know perfectly what September 11, 2001 stands for, but we may have to think for a while for other important dates in history like August 6, 1945, and even many of us don't really know what happened back then. IMO, we should specify that there was an attack on Sept. 11, but it may be unnecessary to call it "a terrorist attack". So, I go for "September 11, 2001 attacks" (the current name of the article). Sabbut 18:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Unlike Hiroshima, September 11th is commonly referred to by the date. In fact, there is no other widely accepted name for the incident. Even the term "events of september 11, 2001" receives far more google hits than "september 11, 2001 attacks." I highly doubt that 60 years from now many people who have heard about the attacks would hear the date and not know what was being referred to. Going back to the example, Hiroshima is a city. By your argument, we move the discussion of the bombings to a page called August 6, 1945 attacks. I'm open to other suggestions, but of the three choices, I think September 11, 2001 is the best. Maybe September 11: Attack on America would be better? Anthony DiPierro 02:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Linking on the page

I don't care who you attribute the word "terrorist" to but it must be linked on this page.--Jiang 20:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 4

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Terrorism in title issue

Okay, so this has been sitting for a few weeks, and we need to come to a decision. People continue making changes without a consensus. The poll indicated a majority favors the new name, although I'm suspicious of many of these "users", but anyway I don't see a poll as being the answer. The goal should be consensus, and this has just turned into a straw poll on anti-US sentiment, which of course is going to go badly given the leftist predominance among Wikipedians. We might as well take a poll on whether Bush should be called "stupid" in his article. The facts, however, remain:

  • Wik's massive changes were made without prior discussion, and the arguments he presents betray a failure to understand the basics of this project; in particular, claiming there is no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden and 9/11 demonstrates his lack of grasp of the notion of POV.
  • No one has provided any argument that the attacks were not "terrorist attacks". Brevity is the only vaguely relevant argument (though not persuasive - attacks is too general). Nevertheless, there has been an attempt to pull the word "terrorist" from all the articles.

So I think it should be changed back, and this page should not be used for people's individual rants about how much they hate America. -- VV 18:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I love America and I am a very patriotic American. Yet I voted to leave out the word 'terrorist' in the title because it is not needed for disambiguation nor is this event more commonly refereed to with it. The poll was needed because Step 1 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution broke down so we went to Step 2 (poll). --mav 21:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not saying all who voted that way are America-haters, but this debate has sure flushed them out. And, as I noted above, the brevity argument holds some water, but attacks is a bit too general, like calling it the September 11, 2001 incident or the September 11, 2001 event. -- VV 22:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wik did not compare 9/11 to the US government bombing of Dresden (and Tokyo, and Hiroshima, and Hanoi), I did. As far as "lack of grasp of the notion of POV" for this comparison on a discussion page - clearly NPOV must be in place on article pages - are you saying this must be stated in every comment in a talk/discussion pages now as well? As far as no one providing arguments that this was not a terrorist attack, I did, and I know you read it as you mentioned it. First, the Pentagon was hit in the attacks, this is clearly a strike against a military target as far as most people are concerned. And as I said, the US has targetted civilians in every war it's ever fought - Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, Hiroshima. Osama Bin Laden was doing the same kind of attacks against communist Afghanistan when the US was aiding him, but Reagan called the mujahideen he was in "freedom fighters". Apparently he only became a "terrorist" when he turned his guns on his old allies. -- HectorRodriguez 21:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your first argument is valid. Calling the attack on the pentagon "terrorist" is POV at best, incorrect at worst. However, the attack on the WTC is indisputably terrorist. If you'd like to provide verifiable opinions otherwise, then feel free to add them, and we can have an entire section of this article devoted to whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist. As for your second argument, it just isn't an argument. Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, and Hiroshima are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist attacks. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
HR, you are wrong; Wik did compare them, look again (you did too). The Pentagon arm of the attack is more uncertain than the others (peacetime attack on a military office building, maybe), but was less than 10% of the death toll. Anthony is correct about the irrelevance of the other cases; OBL's history (disputable) is also irrelevant. -- VV 22:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that personally I feel even the attack on the pentagon was "terrorist." While ostensibly the Pentagon may seem like a military target, it seems clear to me that the goal of that attack was not military in nature. However, it is POV. And while I'm adding my personal feelings, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was "terrorist" as well, for the same reasons. Anthony DiPierro 22:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Attacking the Pentagon per se is to me not so clear, but the attack on the Pentagon was terrorist, inasmuch as it used a civilian airline. The bombing of Hiroshima is an interesting debate, but one that doesn't belong here. -- VV 22:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why does using a civilian airline make the attack terrorist? I suspect someone arguing against the attack being terrorism would bring up the term "collateral damage." Anthony DiPierro 23:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Noxious Chemical Spray?

"Other weapons that may have been used on at least one flight include bombs and some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray."

Can someone please attribute and cite this claim? I had never heard of it before reading this article. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I asked the same question several months ago. See the page for American Airlines Flight 11 although it doesn't list a source either. Rmhermen 18:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

If there's no response within a couple weeks I'm going to remove it until it gets attributed and cited. Let me know here if you object. Anthony DiPierro 18:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I object. It was me who put that note in, though someone else changed it from "some kind of air spray" to "noxious chemical spray". Stewardess Betty Ong reported the use of an air spray by the hijackers that made her eyes water. One reference for this is this one A CBS news report also referred to this - I'll cite it later. In the meantime , might I suggest a google search? Arno 04:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't delete it. I tried a google search initially but couldn't find anything. Anyway, this shouldn't be too hard to find a cite for. But not tonight, I'm going to sleep :). Anthony DiPierro 05:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is a second reference and a third one that supports the air spray story. It was Ms Ong rather than Ms Sweeney who mentioned the stuff. The CBS one seems to have gone, but I do have hard copy of it around somewhere.
Actually, I am quite happy to change to "some kind of air spray" back from "noxious chemical spray" ... unless anyone has any real objections... Arno 07:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I object -air spray is not used in American English in this context. Air spray is only used to refer to paint applicators and firefighting equipment. Rmhermen 14:59, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes for air fresheners, too. But not for generally for pepper spray or mace. Rmhermen 15:02, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, "unpleasant air spray" or "air spray that caused watering to the eyes". Is it likely that in the context of the words around it, readers would seriously think that Atta and company would have used air freshener? Arno 06:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The sentence does still read as though the hijackers used some sort of mass tear gas deployment, whereas the articles seem to indicate just a small amount of pepper spray used on individuals. Not sure how to reword to make it more clear, though. Anthony DiPierro 17:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We don't know what exactly what the spray was (whether it was pepper spray or something else) , or exactly how widely it was used and never will. It was apparently only used around the dfront of the craft. Bear in mind that it would not have been anything too lethal or distracting - otherwise the hijackers would have been affected. Arno 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a name beside Mohammed Atta - whose misidentification has already been described on Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks? Rmhermen 21:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Early revelations section

Okay, what is the problem with inserting this factual, multiply-cited early revelation from the early revelations section? - Plautus satire 21:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rmherman, his sources look ok. The language needs to be toned down, but I don't see why the mention can't stay. Isomorphic 21:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To anybody who wants to change the wording, as long as the meaning is not lost I have no objections. Key points I want left in: Mueller admitting identity ambiguity and the multiple source documents listing still-alive-named-alleged-suicide hijackers. - Plautus satire 22:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It is certainly true that people have claimed to be the same as people identified as hijackers. But there are several problems. One is the use of the term "World Trade Center demolition" which sounds like the conspiracy theory that the towers were destroyed by the U.S. from the ground. Another is that it does not go in this section which is for information before 9/11/2001 -probably should be under Investigations.
  • 1. Has anyone pictured by the FBI ever been seen alive after 9/11?
  • 2. Has anyone pictured by the FBI been shown to have a different name?
  • 3. Has anyone who claimed to by misidentified ever done anything like sued for defamation of character?

Perhaps the hijackers really did use their own names - in fact in several instances we know that they did. Perhaps the others were correctly named and wrongly detailed because details of others with the same names were easily available. There is certainly no reason to declare that "The FBI has not removed the names of the alleged suicide hijackers and has ignored any implications this may have on their conspiracy theories which identify these living men as successful suicide hijackers." because we have no reason to believe that the names were wrong.

I propose the following: "Almost immediately after the attack, the FBI released the names of nineteen men they claimed had been on the planes. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that people claimed to be have the same name and some personal details as certain suicide hijackers and were possible victims of identity theft. However the FBI did not find a need to change any of the identifications of the hijackers." Rmhermen 22:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have big problems with this proposed edition. For one thing, it leaves out the very relevant information that FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted they don't know who the suicide hijackers were, or even if there were any for that matter. Second of all, these are not merely reports with the same name and same personal details, they are the people the FBI has identified. Are you suggesting these reports are hoaxes? I do agree that it should be noted, however, that the FBI refuses to change their fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters.

Also you state "we know" that some of the hijackers did in fact use their own names. Based on what? None of their names appeared in any of the passenger manifests and none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras boarding the identified hijacked flights. - Plautus satire 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't give Plautus's wild conspiracy theories an inch. Evercat 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The FBI never denied or tried to hide the fact that they knew that some, many, or all of the hijackers could be possibly traveling with phony papers. Read the FBI press releases:
The FBI clearly lists that each of the terrorists with a questionable identity has the words "Suspected ID theft" right next to their picture. It stands to reason that if they don't know the true identity then they would continue to identify them by the last used alias. The paragraph that Plautus wants to add is disingenuous that it subtly twists the reality (FBI acknowledged identity questions) of the situation and instead uses a phrase intended to promote doubt, "reports began to surface...". Furthermore, the use of the word "many" to describe the number of mis-identified hijackers is also intended to create the illusion that the FBI didn't know as much as it said it did. It wasn't "many", it was only four. The rest of his paragraph is smoke and mirrors, and the reference to the FBI's conspiracy theories is an amusing twist. OK, not really amusing so much as ironic. (Plautus, if you know the identity of any of those men then call the FBI at 1-866-483-5137, they need your "help") --SheikYerBooty 04:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
SheikYerBooty, CyberCriminals Most Wanted is not the FBI. The FBI still has pictures of all nineteen men and mentions nowhere that any of them are proven victims of identity theft.American Airlines #11,American Airlines #77,United Airlines #93,United Airlines #175
Further, in the two documents on the FBI's web site that you do cite, the only mention tangentally related to identity theft is this: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV. The photographs can be viewed at WWW.FBI.GOV." This passage is in an FBI press release dated September 27, 2001, more than a week after reports that many of the "suicide hijackers" were still alive. Why is the FBI not bragging about their initial blunders? I just wonder... Note, the press release asks "Have you seen these faces/names? They are suicide hijackers, tell us about help us prove that!" - Plautus satire 06:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Plautus, I can't think of a more gentle way of saying this, but, you're wrong. The FBI press releases clearly state that the positive ID'ing of the people on the list isn't complete. Just read the darn thing, it lists "possible" birthdates, "possible" nationalities, and a list of aliases for many of the hijackers. The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents, this is not a secret nor is so earthshaking that it requires your speculation. You also apparently invented a quote from them, so it's not really appropraite for me to comment on that. Please address the points I outlined in my previous question, you failed to do that in your reply. --SheikYerBooty 19:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
You can be as gentle as you like, it will not make you right. What follows is the only mention of possible mistaken identity on the FBI's web site regarding these men: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV." Nowhere does it state they were victims of identity theft, even though this is ten days after the initial report on still-living "suicide hijackers". Can the FBI be no more equivocal than saying "attempts to confirm" when dealing with what is clearly a very severe blunder in "investigation"? And so you don't remain confused, though I put it in quotes, what I was doing was summarzing the position of an FBI document that you yourself cited. The document claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can "confirm" it. Can you show me where the FBI has explicitly stated that many of the men they named as suicide hijackers are proven to be still alive? I would love to b e wrong. - Plautus satire 19:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Also point out the evidence that leads you to believe your following statement: "The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents..." Is this based solely on your personal belief or do you have some evidence to support this claim? - Plautus satire 19:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Platus, stop playing silly games with semantics, it's obvious that the FBI was still trying to determine the identities of the hijackers. You're refusing to look at the evidence that refutes your statements, your myopic view of the evidence is preventing you from reaching a rational conclusion. And, here is a newspaper story that details some of the work that FBI was doing to determine identities. You insist on misquoting the FBI press releases, it does not, as you say, "claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can 'confirm' it". Your willingness to distort facts is clear but don't act all put out when people challenge you. --SheikYerBooty 22:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think I can help clear up your confusion, SheikYerBooty. I quoted the FBI directly and linked to the document. What you quote above is what I said, not what I quoted. Can you show me where they say the men were victims of identity theft and in some cases still alive? The FBI is not the news source you cite above. And the FBI has still maintained that these nineteen men were the hijackers, and as of September 27, 2001, they were trying to enlist support from the public to "confirm" that. - Plautus satire 23:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Plautus, you misquoted the FBI press releases, repeatedly. It's really simple, read what you wrote, read the FBI press release and take note that they aren't the same. You asked for a source for the information that the FBI recognizes that the hijackers used stolen and faked ID's, I provided it. You don't like? Sorry, your problem. Here is what the FBI is trying to confirm, in the proper context: It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. See, you're trying to twist what they said and take it out of context, again. --SheikYerBooty 05:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the entire earlier revelations section could be chopped down. A fair bit of it reads more like a subjective essay than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Arno 06:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Supporting Evidence

BBC, Newsweek, New York Times, and TIME have all had articles about how the so-called hijackers were clearly not on the planes -- since they are alive and well, living in the Middle East, and suing the United States for libel and defamation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Equivocations

Oh very well, perhaps this isn't as wild as his other stuff. Evercat 00:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think it's exactly as wild as all my stuff. BWA-HA!HA!HA!HA! - Plautus satire 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further Issues

Still, I'm curious about the "fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters". If that's a fable, perhaps Plautus could tell us what really happened. Evercat 00:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I edited it. A lot. I don't see why this should be removed any more. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda

I am getting increasingly worried about this article and its related pages. Currently, it seems to be used to argue two things, the combination of which is 'watering down' the details of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Firstly, it is being that those who carried out the crimes were not terrorists. This is pure nonsense by any reasonable definition of the word. I know that its been argued extensively above , so I'll go no further.

Secondly, it is being used to dispute the names of the terrorists themselves, based mainly on references that are badly out of date. Whilst the true identities of some of the terrorists are in doubt (eg Saeed al-Ghamdi),there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest. It is therefore ludricous to say, for instance that Mohammed Atta was not a terrorist.

Some errors of fact have also crept in. Saying that "none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras" is wrong. Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari were photographed when they were on their way to board Flight 11.

Ultimately, this article is meant to be a NPOV account of the hijackings. It is NOT an outlet for conspiracy theories, politically correct pedantry and other such actions. Arno 09:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adding details is "watering down"? Interesting hypotheses. I don't think it holds any water, however.
Groan! Trying to dispute the names of the 19 hijackers is "adding details"?

Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As for criminality, who are you labelling a criminal? Still-living men who obviously took no part in any suicide hijackings?
Just which of the 19 men listed as the hijackers are still alive? And can you give me their contact details?(An e-mail address would be great)Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the Bush regime and other have variously described this incident as "terrorism" and "an act of war".

Ok, what would you call "this incident"? An act of love? Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it is an act of war, it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it is not justification for a war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else). If it was a crime, why was there no forensic analysis of evidence? Virtually all of the steel from the WTC complex was sold as scrap to foreign nations and is now probably all paperclips. In a case of a crime, usually there is an investigation. Instead of an investigation, we got HGBI (Hansel and Gretel FBI) showing us the trail of breadcrumbs the conspirators left pointing to muslims with box cutters.

The above passage is perhaps the most astounding statement about Sep 11 I have ever read. You have just managed to deny that there was ever an investigation of the Sep 11 crimes using a truly astonishing mangling of logic and definitions. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You also claim above that "there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest". On what do you base this claim?
On a very large number of Sep 11 accounts. On what do you base your claim that Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Majed Moqed, Marwan al-Shehhi, and the rest did not partcipate in Sep 11? Indeed your version is rather vague - would you care to define it. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where are these names on the passenger manifests? Where are these faces in security videos? All we've been shown is a single, blurry, grainy security video that shows somebody with dark hair and a tan walking past a ticket counter. In short, where is any evidence that we were promised we would get regarding these arabs with box cutters? If you want to know more about box cutters, read about the five Israelis arrested with stacks of cash and box cutters, not to mention a van bomb-dogs went nutso on.

You can probably use this kind of logic to prove that the earth is flat. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If it's not an outlet for conspiracy theory, then why is the FBI's baseless conspiracy theory for which they offer no evidence presented there? At least the amateur conspiracy hypothesists feel compelled to provide evidence. Clearly the FBI does not, as all they have provided are hollow fables. - Plautus satire 15:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Also, where are these images to which you refer of "suicide hijackers" boarding planes or their names being on the passenger manifests? - Plautus satire 19:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
These images do exist. Try this CCTV webpage as one example that I dug up thorugh google in just 15 seconds. By the wya, make up your mind, do these images exist or not? Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Israelis are you referring to? Evercat 16:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These Israelis:
"A story in Philadelphia's The Mercury may hold the answer."
"Two men whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained in the township by federal imigration authorities after being found with detailed footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Plymouth Police encountered the men after an officer responded to Pizzeria Uno on the 1000 block of West Ridge Pike at 2:40 p.m."
"Investigators first became interested in the business after witnesses reported Tuesday that three men seemed to celebrate the World Trade Center explosions in Liberty State Park, then drove away in a company van. 'To the best of my knowledge, my client Urban Moving Systems and Dominik Suter are not targets,' said attorney Jay Hamill of Jersey City. 'This is an informational situation. We're cooperating completely and have objected to nothing they've requested.'"[16]
This site is a conspiracy theory website. It shoudl be looked at with caution. Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"The man, who later identified himself as Moshe Elmakias, 30, denied that he did anything and fled the scene, heading west on West Ridge Pike, according to police."
"The manager was able to provide township police with the Florida registration number of the tractor-trailer and said that a sign posted on the side of the vehicle read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and included a phone number, police said."
"Elmakias and Katar were eventually detained by INS and transported to a federal facility, said police. Reisler was released."[17]
"The men were searched and questioned and the state officers discovered detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear power plant in Florida, along with box cutters ? the weapons used in the September 11th attacks ? and other equipment."[18]
"We spoke earlier about the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his moving company and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported."[19]
You mean you haven't heard about these Israelis, Evercat? I'm surprised, it's been all over the news. - Plautus satire 17:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 5

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FBI's conspiracy theory

It is not inaccurate or misleading in any way to characterize the FBI's hypothesis as to what occured during the World Trade Center demolition as "conspiarcy theory". If you object to the term "conspiracy theory," I can only assume this is because you perceive that characterizing something as "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. Is this the case? Was not the World Trade Center demolition a conspiracy? Does not the FBI offer a theory about the World Trade Center demolition? Is this conspiracy theory offered by the FBI verified or falsified by observable evdience? Granted, calling it a theory is overstating the case, since they have no evidence. Until they find some evidence to support their absurd notions, they should actulaly be called conspiracy "hypotheses". -Plautus satire 17:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. (Yes, IHBT, IHL.) Anthony DiPierro 17:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama to Usama, Al-Qaida to Al Qaeda (arabic transliteration standard)

The FBI spells the man's name "Usama"[20] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Osama". - Plautus satire 18:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The USDOJ spells the organization's name "Al Qaeda"[21] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Al-Qaida". - Plautus satire 18:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter since his name is more commonly spelled Osama and the organization is more commonly spelled Al-Qaida. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 01:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the tip. I found at the top of that page: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page." This is talking about people with various names. The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted. Because two million people spelled his name wrongly does not mean that two million people get to rename Usama bin Laden or change the spelling of his name. In all English-translated releases from al Qaeda the names are "Usama" and "al Qaeda" not "Osama" and "Al-Qaida". Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Misspelling somebody's name does not mean that name is their alias or pseudonym or nomme de plume or any such thing. Right is right and wrong is wrong. - Plautus satire 01:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just read more of this, hey, you know what, maverick, that page explains how to choose names for title pages, not how to spell names in the body of pages. Presumably the old saw "if it's right put it in, if it's wrong take it out" would apply here... Ya think? - Plautus satire 01:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm just curious here, mav, did you actually read that page before you pointed me to it as the "answer" for this problem? I think you may have been a bit hasty. - Plautus satire 01:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I wrote most of that page based on community consensus on the issue. The FBI is just one agency (and not a very neutral one in this matter). Unless you can demonstrate that your preferred spellings are more common, then the agreed to spelling stands. --mav 03:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying that page does not describe naming conventions for titling entries but, instead or in addition to, describes a process by which appropriate spellings for names in the body of an arbitrary entry are chosen not by some objective standard but by consensus of Google hits? I'm very reluctant to say this, since I know you will find it offensive, but Maveric149, I really do not find that credible.
If that was the intention of the entry you cited I feel that entry is very poorly written, as all I can glean from reading it is that wikipedia entries should use the idea of commonality in determination of their name so that casual users and "browsers" can more easily find what they are looking for. In a way this is akin to a spellchecker that checks only against commonly tpyoed words like "teh," "beleif," etcetera. It's a systemic attempt to provide people what they want, not necessarily what they ask for. I think this is a good idea since it will make the encyclopedia more useful to more people.
Nowhere in that entry do I see any suggestion that an accurate spelling of a name in the body of an entry should be discarded in favor of a popular misspelling of that name. I would ask for citations that state, suggest, or even hint at this, but honestly the inaccurate spelling used in that entry is just scratching the surface of what troubles me most about it. I find it difficult to read the entry without losing confidence in humanity as a whole for swallowing this absolute utter crap and not just swallowing it but vomitingregurgitating it back up and expecting others to gobble it up just as greedilybelieve in this fable without evidence.
At this point I'd like to retract my proposal that accurate spellings be used in this entry. - Plautus satire 05:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above changes are still unaddressed, yet two reversions of these changes have now taken place. If it happens again perhaps it's time to seek arbitrationmediation. - Plautus satire 01:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. We are only at step 1. --mav 01:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By the way, Plautus, and this has been pointed out to you on your talk page, there is no one correct way of converting from Arabic to English. That's why there always have been variations in the spelling of names such as Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Marwan al-Shehhi, etc. For the purposes of this website, it makes sense to just stick to the one commonly-used spelling.
The opinion expressed by many is that there is no accurate spelling of Usama that is not dependent on Google hits, not that there is no one correct way of spelling proper names. - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the FBI does spell it as Usama bin Laden - I've seen his wanted poster. But just don't worry about it. Include the alternate spelling on bin Laden's wikipedia page (if not already there) and move onto other matters. Arno 11:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why move the proper spelling to the status of alternate and use an unofficial spelling as the proper one? - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the reasons I have noted above, and quoted and cited below, I intend to fix the spelling errors with regards to the numerous misspellings of Usama in this entry. These misspellings (Osama) do not accord with accepted transliteration principles as outlined in the only demonstrated (to or by those discussing this issue) published transliteration standards for Arabic[22],[23]. In my opinion a popular mistake is not preferable to an unpopular objective fact. - Plautus satire 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. There is no such thing as a "misspelling" when transliterating from one alphabet to another. And the name as is is the most common spelling known by English speakers. RickK 04:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RickK, let me first express the sincere sentiment that I value your opinion on this issue as much as I value my own. This, however, is a case where there are established, published standards and conventions for transliteration of Arabic. I do not see how opinion enters into this. The spellings in the body of the entry "Osama" are inconsistent with these accepted and published, though not universally known, standards and conventions. Is mass ignorance to be used as an excuse for mass errors in wikipedia? This is a clear-cut case of an arbitrary misspelling of a proper name that is in violation of known, published, accepted standards and conventions, not a difference of opinion. If there is any difference of opinion I can detect, it's the apparently prevailing opinion that Arabs do not know their own languages (or the English language) well enough to establish transliteration standards and conventions for their own language. I feel that many users would prefer to stand by a common misspelling that violates these standards and conventions rather than give the Arabs sovereignty in that (or any) respect. If you want my honest opinion, this protest against fixing spelling errors is cryptoracism. - Plautus satire 04:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have been searching for other transliteration standards and conventions for transliterating Arabic and I have been unable to find any. After a reasonable amount of time passes, if there are no conflicting standards offered, I will again correct the numerous misspellings in this entry and any other place I can find "Osama bin Laden" in wikipedia. - Plautus satire 04:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(deleted misplaced discussion for placement below--TomND 11:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Arabic Transliteration Standards

Transliteration standard from The Encyclopaedia of Islam (with minor variations).

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. Minor changes from The Encyclopaedia of Islam are noted below:

The differences between the system of transliteration of the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the system used here, are mainly due to the complex interaction of the database with the html-script. The differences can be summerized as follows:

  1. The emphatic letters Saad, Daad, Taa', and Zaa' as well as the letter Haa', which are transliterated in the Encyclopaedia of Islam with a dot beneath a small letter, are represented in our system with the corresponding capital letters.
  2. The emphatic letter qaaf is transliterated with a "q" in our system instead of a "k" with a dot.
  3. The letter jiim is transliterated by "j" in our system instead of "dj".
  4. The letter cayn, which is transliterated by c in the Encyclopadia of Islam, is represented by * in our system.
  5. Long vowels are represented by writing the vowel twice instead of a dash above the letter.
The website you refer to was describing the standards that it had chosen to use to translate Arabic on its website. It never said that these standards were universal. Furthermore, nowhere in the above quote does it say that Osama bin Laden must be spelt with a "U". If there is anything on the website that says that you can, I'm sure that you'll let me know. Arno 06:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The website(s) to which I refer feature the only known published, accepted standards on this issue. I rest my case. Nowhere in these standards is there any mention to an "O" letter or sound. I rest my case, again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Qalam: A Convention for Morphological Arabic-Latin-Arabic Transliteration in plain text format.

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. The conventions are listed in plain text format and no appearance of the letter "O" or mention of the "O" sound is made.

And where does it say that spelling bin Laden's name with a U is current and correct? Arno 06:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what the only known, published, accepted standards dictate. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whether "Osama bin Laden" is a "misspelling" or not, it's the name that, at least, most Americans will recognize, and it's the name that they're going to look for. The Wikipedia policy of use most common names should apply. RickK 23:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is the policy for spelling the titles of entries, I have not seen where it is policy to accept misspellings in entry bodies on the basis of popular misspellings. - Plautus satire 01:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the policy applies to article titles. Furthermore, there really are very few policies -- most policies are simply pages and "votes" which more aggressive users have created. Lirath Q. Pynnor

(moved here from section below) (more moving of plautus satire's comments around, silsor can you come and reversion this so my comments are not context-challenged?) - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a policy for American vs British spelling. That policy to to follow whatever was being used in the article itself. The OBL spelling is what was used before and most people who have commented on this think that that spelling should stay. --mav 02:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can you please show me where you got this notion that accepted, published standards and conventions for transliteration should be forever ignored if they were ignored in the original entry? I've searched many places and none of them mention that misspelling words in the body of an entry is okay if there is precedent for it. Of course I also found no explicit statement that spelling errors should be fixed, but there is more than enough implicit evidence that spelling errors should be fixed. - Plautus satire 05:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should dictionaries be replaced with group consensus? Just curious. - Plautus satire 05:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Plautus, there is no standard for transliteration of Arabic to English. Thats because its not a misspelling. You can spell Arabic names in many ways correctly. WhisperToMe 06:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It seems there is some confusion as to the "proper" translation (transliteration) of the name "Osama"/"Usama" into the romanized spelling. Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no "proper" way to do this, seeing as how the first character in bin Laden's first name has no western counterpart ([24]).
Yes, there is a proper way. A published, accepted way of transliteration. It is not merely up to group consensus of the world. The confusion stems from people like you and many others who believe there are no standards, or the standard is relative amount of Google hits. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the west there have been competing standards developed to aid in the transliteration of Arabic to western language, and those give rise to the "Osama"/"Usama" dilemma.
There are no competing standards. Show me one other than the two I cited that are virtually identical. Do you think Arabs do not know enough about their own language to establish transliteration standards? I rest my case. Again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Which is correct? Well, given the immense press coverage of the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terror", it is safe to say "either". At this point there can be no doubt that anyone reading either spelling will know precisely who is being discussed.
Well, given that there are established, published, accepted standards, the proper spelling is correct, not the improper spelling that violated the only known, published, accepted standards. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
From Sullentrop's article [25]:
"A variety of systems exist to Romanize Arabic letters and words, but there is no dominant one. The International Journal of Middle East Studies offers one system, the Library of Congress a slightly different one. And not all publications consistently follow one system, either."--TomND 18:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate these standards? So far the only two published standards cited agree with me. - Plautus satire 18:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your Slate article (I stopped reading when they started charing, Kinsley is a fruitcake) also states: The AP stylebook says, ?people are entitled to be known however they want to be known as long as their identities are clear.? - Usama bin Laden has made many "press release" style announcements. In ever case he transliterated (or was transliterated for him) as "Usama". Should the AP stylebook be abandoned as well as the only published transliteration standards? - Plautus satire 18:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think you misread, the AP style book uses "Osama". "That hasn?t been enough to get the AP or Slate to change their stylebooks." That, alone should be enough to end this silliness. There is no "standard", the most common usage is "Osama", so let it be.--TomND 18:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And I know I did not misread. Show me the AP stylbook and quote where it says what you claim. The AP stylebook is a stylebook, not a factbook, and as such would contain no policy on specific names, particularly proper names of people who choose to spell it differently. The AP stylebook says let people spell their names however they like, and accept it. Violate the AP stylebook. Violate accepted, published standards and conventions. But do not misrepresent your violation as obedience. - Plautus satire 18:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
According to Norm Goldstein, stylebook editor for the Associated Press [26]: "It's a question of transliteration. "Arab vowels commonly become A, I or U; E and O don't really exist except for personal preference. And since we're not going to ask Osama bin Laden his preference, Osama -- more often than not -- is spelled with an O."--TomND 19:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see, so you are suggesting that the style sheet be abandoned specifically in the case of bin Laden, since Norm Goldstein is not going to ask bin Laden how he wants his own name spelled. Thank you for demonstrating your (and Mr. Goldstein's) prejudice on this issue. I see when prejudice is popular enough it is justifiable in your mind. Thank you again for making your position on this matter crystal clear. I still maintain that the AP should follow the guidelines of its own style sheet, regardless of the personal feelings of Mr. Goldstein. - Plautus satire 19:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So practically the entire world uses the term "Osama", yet you have determined that is not correct, and are determined to set the record straight? Best of luck to you. However the preponderance of evidence, as well as the AP stylebook, supports the current usage and I believe it is proper for this site to continue to use it.--TomND 20:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You seem to think that "practically the entire world" speaks English. I know for a fact that the most common language on the planet Earth is Chinese. Does that mean a billion Chinese spell it "Osama"? Have you polled them? What about the Indians? Do they also spell it "Osama"? When you say "practically the entire world," who do you mean, exactly? If "practically the entire world" beleived in a flat Earth, people who could prove otherwise would be met with ridicule and prejudice, just like the prejudice you espouse in terms of Usama bin Laden's capacity to choose how his own name is transliterated, a right I'm sure you would not contest if it were applied to Albert Einchrist. Thank you so much for your patience on this issue, I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice makes it difficult for you to discuss this calmly. - Plautus satire 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

" I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice"... I mean really, is your constant abuse necessary? Do you need to ask why everybody here "persecutes" you? I try to debate this like an adult and you try to turn it into a flame-fest. Sorry, I'm not biting. Grow up.--TomND 00:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The point was made that, since the FBI uses the "Usama" spelling, that is somehow the "official" spelling. A few disagreements with that line of thought. First, as seen here[27], here[28] and here[29], the FBI uses the spelling "Osama" quite often in press releases, so obviously they are not as concerned about the "proper" spelling as we may be led to believe.
No, the point was made that the FBI uses an "U" which is correct, so that spelling should be used, as it accords with the only known, published standards. I rest my case once more. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But, more importantly, we see the Department of Justice (of which the FBI is a part) use the spelling "Osama" in LEGAL filings, [30] and [31]. It would seem that if the DOJ/FBI were concerned about a "correct" spelling, they would use it exclusively, especially in the hypertechnical legal field.
You're exactly right, and I was waiting for somebody to point this out. The original "wanted poster" and statements from the FBI also initially used an "O". Why did the FBI correct their mistake? I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, legal definitions of words commonly conflict with real definitions of words, like insane. In the context of the law, insane has a valid meaning. In the context of objective psychology, clearly it does not. This isn't a case of different spelling, but shows quite clearly how out-of-step the law can be with observable reality. - Plautus satire 19:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The FBI updated the wanted poster in November 2001 [32], however, the FBI used the term "Osama" in a press release on March 4, 2003, and the DOJ used "Osama" in a legal filing in 2003 [33]. If they "corrected" the mistake, they corrected it to "Osama". That, however, is not the case because both spellings are used.--TomND 17:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
All you are really demonstrating here is that the FBI is inconsistent. Sometimes they spell it "Osama" and sometimes they spell it according to accepted, published standards and conventions. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, your original statement was "The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted." I proved that they do use the name "Osama", so your reasoning (the FBI uses it so it must be right) is incorrect.--TomND 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am prepared to admit I misspoke when I said that the FBI does not use "Osama" and "Usama" variably. I must admit I was attempting to appeal to authority on this one, as everyone else is also doing. I thought the FBI would lend credibility to my claims. Clearly by citing the FBI as a source I have set myself up for ridicule. I withdraw my claim that the FBI never spelled it "Osama," they spell it both ways. One way accords with known, published standards and conventions for transliteration, the other does not. - Plautus satire 18:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So what we are left with ,essentially, is the "tyranny of citation", as Sullentrop calls it in his Slate article. Spellings become entrenched and thus become standard. We see that now with "Osama". According to Arab Gateway the "Osama" spelling is used 92% of the time, so it would be correct to use it as the spelling on this site.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. I rest my case one final time. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) And that link is dead. An old Slate article also should not overturn published, accepted standards. I was told that there were "many accepted standards" (never mind the oxymoronic nature of that phrase) on transliteration of this type when in fact I can only find two and they agree with me. No other published, accepted standards or conventions have been identified or proposed, aside from consensus of Google hits. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Here is the fixed link to Arab Gateway [34]. In it, please note the following statement, "The ideal solution would be to have a standard, internationally agreed, system. Several have been proposed but unfortunately none has been universally accepted." Which completely invalidates your "known, published standards and conventions for transliteration".--TomND 21:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I hope this clarifies things.--TomND 11:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I now understand that you intend to see this misspelling left in the document and intend to justify it by saying many others have made the same mistake and there is no reason for wikipedia to be factual when it can instead be "popular". I guess facts don't make as much money as fairy tales. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling! There is no standard. End of story. WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, WhisperToMe, you and others have already made your prejudices crystal clear. Use objective standards, but only until you decide not to based on personal dislike or disgust of people. I understand you now. - Plautus satire 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very old and persistent misinformation and noise in World Trade Center demolition entry

I suggest that this entry contains so many factual and thematic errors that it needs to be re-written from the ground up. The piecework is just making a huge mess of an already messy entry. - Plautus satire 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to put in the time and completely re-work this entry? I feel it is much too noisy and contains way too many factual and thematic errors to make it of any use except as a smear piece on Usama bin Laden. There are numerous references to bin Laden in this piece and yet no evidence has ever surfaced that implicates bin Laden in any way. All of the videotapes where bin Laden "confesses" are in dispute, and it seems only "official" DoD translations arrive at the conclusion that bin Laden had foreknowlege. But then what is the English-speaking world to believe? The DoD or habbala-jabbala-mamba-jahambo? The only alternative I see to a complete re-write of this entry is the continued war of attrition for insertion of factual data that overturns the fables. - Plautus satire 05:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, but OBL is very widely considered to be the mastermind behind the attack. Of course we can't just state, as fact, that he did it since that is disputed. But describing what various people think is fine. --mav
Should I take this to mean you do not want to participate in a reworking of this entry? If that's the case, thank you for your time. I have no questions or comments for you. - Plautus satire 06:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should I take this to mean that you do not wish to write an NPOV article? NPOV requires us to describe disputes where information is disputed (not to censor some relevant views over others). This article isn't perfect but it does seem to do that. --mav

You should take this to mean I desire a reworking of this entry as I feel it has too many errors for piecework correction to be effective in a human lifetime. Would you care to discuss ways the page can be torn down and rebuilt so it contains more factual data and less wild speculation? - Plautus satire 06:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the wild speculation? --mav
Why should I start discussing this with you when you have stated you do not want the entry reworked? - Plautus satire 15:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you present evidence to support your view then I might change my mind. --mav

News Flash. Plautus announced here that he has quit wikipedia. It's sad that it came to this. But hopefully a bit of sanity will return on this page as well as a few others he's been involved with. Arno 07:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minor point, I have only (I think) announced that I intend to stop contributing to entries, because I feel there's no point, all my changed are striken or put into "crackpot" contexts. - Plautus satire 17:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 6

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wild Speculation and Other Error

"September 11, 2001 attacks" - Assumes external attack instead of inside demolition job. No concrete evidence offered to support notion it was an "attack" carried out by suicide hijackers. All stories by FBI et al lead to dead-ends with no resolution or evidence.

"With full tanks of jet fuel, the aircraft were used as flying bombs, one of which was piloted into each of the two towers of the World Trade Center, one into The Pentagon, with a final aircraft crashing into a Pennsylvania field (the intended target of this jet remains unknown)." - Full tanks of fuel, yet the planes had been in the air in some cases for over an hour. Also speculation as to a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon make this unlikely and unwarranted even as speculation. Destination of final aircraft is known, so that is a factual error, it was Chicago, which is where it would have been if it hadn't taken off forty minutes late, where it would have struck the Sears tower which was at that time being videotaped by Israeli Moshe Elmakias who has since been arrested and deported back to his mother land, Israel.

"Shortly following the attacks, the United States government accused Al-Qaida..." - Clear speculation, allowed only because "US said it".

"This led to a "War on Terrorism" that included the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (with support of the United Nations)." - Factual errors. The US invasion of Afghanistan was not supproted by the UN, which forbids retaliation in case of criminal act (terrorism) and forbids defining acts of war as terrorism. Catch-22 for US, so they burn the book and roll over everyone.

"The combined attack of September 11 on the World Trade Center was the deadliest act of terrorism against the United States and one of the deadliest attacks of asymmetric warfare in history." - Acts can not be both acts of war and terrorism. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. Pick one side and stay on it. How is such a self-conflicting statement able to survive scrutiny? Is this page being given any scrutiny or is it monitored by a few fanatics who insist on supporting the FBI fable?

"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM EDT." - Again, unlikely given the antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon. These missiles can make paperclips out of a fully-armed-and-armored attack aircraft before they get anywhere near the Pentagon, a passenger jet spiraling down to the Pentagon over two and a half minutes would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

"The fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The evidence suggests that it crashed after passengers and crew tried but failed to retake control of the plane from the hijackers." - Once again, the stories lead to dead ends. Cell phone calls are proved to be impossible, plucky Todd Beamer is found (so the "official" story goes) to have called an AT&T operator and talked to her for thirteen minutes before he pulled a Passenger 57 on Achmed (operator to this day remains unknown, nobody has stepped forward to identify themselves as the operator who listened to Todd Beamer for 13 minutes then relayed the conversation later by phone to his new widow), FAA radar tracks fast-movers intercepting flight immediately before its mid-air disintegration.

"Some passengers and crew were able to make phone calls from the doomed flights. They reported that there was more than one hijacker on each plane (a total of 19 were later identified) and that they took control of the planes using box-cutter knives. Additionally, some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray, was used on at least one flight. There were also reports from at least two of the flights that hijackers claimed to be carrying bombs." - None of these reports are verifiable. One can find innumerable citations of these stories and many others, but none of them are verifiable.

---

Okay, then show me the source which specifically says that its speculation =\ WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? You want me to find a source saying there is no source? Is this a serious question or do I misunderstand you? Can you explain what you mean more verbosely so I don't misinterpret your somewhat vague statements? Thank you for your time and patience on this issue, I will not ignore it. - Plautus satire 01:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- Listen, we have copious sources relating to the stuff you are griping about. I believe that the telephone operator that Beamer was talking to was named Lisa Jefferson, and she was at a GTE center near Chicago. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/Todd-Beamer.html WhisperToMe

Oh, I am sorry, you are right, let me examine what your "copious" source claims. For if we can not verify the story from this "copious" source we do not have evidence, but merely another fable. Where are the recordings of this call? Is it reasonable to assume that a typical GTE operator, in addition to reciting a prayer and taking a last request, would not think to record the conversation with the doomed man on the hijacked plane? Apparently this woman was too emotional over the whole thing to click a button. - Plautus satire 03:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Snopes says that cockpit tapes suggest a struggle between hijackers and other non-hijacking passengers. Where is this tape? Once again we find that we quickly encounter a wall shutting out further investigation. We have no public domain evidence, all of it is secret. It is this "secret evidence" that nobody is allowed to see that constitutes what is commonly called the "proof" in this case. - Plautus satire 03:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-020419flight93,0,2369725.story - The flight 93 families heard the tape, btw. WhisperToMe 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And these tapes are where? How can I listen to them? How can they be subjected to scrutiny? - Plautus satire 03:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article cited above is very interesting. It makes the following claim: "The last minutes of the tape are muffled by the sound of rushing wind as the plane plunged from the sky, family members said, but the recording was clear enough that American and Arabic-speaking voices could be discerned." Rushing wind heard inside a plane? Have you ever been inside a passenger jet? Have you ever heard rushing wind? - Plautus satire 03:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article lists the names of all forty people the airline says was on the flight in question. Did none of the other thirty-nine (13 times 3? Relevant? As relevant as your comments on this issue.) want a chance to pray with the operator and bid fond farewell to their loved ones? Todd Beamer must have had quite a calming influence on those other thirty-nine people, in order to stay on the phone for thirteen minutes while praying with an operator and saying his last goodbyes by proxy to his soon-to-be-widow. Were all of these other people friendless orphans to whom they had nobody to offer a single goodbye? With such level-headed, organized passengers, it's surprising they were not able to overcome the small number of hijackers and pilot the plane safely back to the ground like in a Washywood movie. - Plautus satire 03:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This passage by Plautus is so stupid (<= Why is this going unchallenged by impartial observers? Is this a fair response? - Plautus satire 21:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) and illinformed that it barely merits a response. But I'll give one anyway. Literally dozens of phone calls were made from Flight 93 - Beamer was certainly not the only one. Several of them - Beamer, Glick,Burnett, Lyles - stated on the phone that they intended to overpwer the hijackers. and they died whilst attempting to do just that. The operator that Beamer spoke to was Lisa Jefferson. She stepped forward right away and was never anonymous. Arno 06:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Where are recordings of all these phone calls? We were shared the life of Todd Beamer's new widow and his "let's roll" story, what about the other heroes? Who were they? - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have heard that it is technically impossible to make a mobile phone call from a plane (no reception because too far away from ground) - does anyone have reliable info about this question?? I think we can dismiss Plautus' objection that 39 people would have reacted in a different way, like tried to take control of the plane, because they didn't realise what their ultimate fate was. They probably thought that they would survive unhamred if they just behaved as told by the hijackers (even some hijackers didn't know it was a suicide attack). pir 06:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nope - The hijackers planned to crash the plane into the Pentagon or the White House; and have you heard of a GTE Airfone before? WhisperToMe 06:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mark Bingham, Cee Cee Lyles, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Sandy Bradshaw to name a few. (The two girls are flight attendants who have been said to have boiled water to throw at the hijackers) WhisperToMe 00:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where is the evidence that this event you describe of boiling water occured? Where is the evidence for any of these claims made about the events on this flight? Were there eyewitnesses? You do a wonderfully succinct job of presenting these stories, but I'm afraid your evidence for these stories is abit lacking. A story repeated is not necessarily a true story. See: [http:/www.snopes.com/ Snopes] - Plautus satire 02:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


13x3 is not relevant, by that reasoning -- 1939 would be a significant and unlucky year. Oh wait, it was. God have mercy upon the people of 393939 (note the inverted 666 hidden in that date). Heh, PLaubus what is 39 inverted...93! Fear the numerology. Lirath Q. Pynnor

hehe - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where are the records of these GTE airfone calls? Or records of any reported cell phone calls? Or records of any calls, period? What about recordings of calls? Are there any? - Plautus satire 06:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus (or Yet Another Page Turned Into Bash Plautus)

Some of his comments are valid. For instance, he correctly noted that the UN does not support the "War on Terror". While his goal seems to be that of introducing conspiracy theory information to this page -- the fact is, a whole lot of people think that a conspiracy occurred. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, Lir, the UN does support the Afghanistan War, but NOT the Iraq war. You are half right and half wrong. :) - Whisper, too lazy to sign in.

Did they pass a resolution supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, I can't find any such record of that. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, they did pass resolutions condemning the Taliban and Al-Qaida, therefore paving way to the freezing of accounts and the like. WhisperToMe 00:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But were they resolutions giving permission for the US to invade Afghanistan? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I admit I read the talk page at close to double speed, but doesn't the "terrorist" question simply pivot on whether or not the intent behind the events was to generate as much fear as possible on a civilian population? That being generally accepted (including from the conspiratorial angle, which at least raises interesting observations), the term seems NPOV to me and thus viable, though would function either way. Chris Rodgers.

UN support for war on terrorism?

The UN does not support the "war on terrorism," which is real war, waged against countries based on the alleged criminal activity of their respective populations. The UN forbids going to war over criminal acts. The UN defines acts of war as other than terrorism. If these demolitions were acts of war, then evidence needs to be provided proving that Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever is being invaded next week are involved, otherwise the invasions are invalid per the UN. The UN has not sanctioned the invasion of Iraq nor the prosecution of an illegal war in Afghanistan in response to an illegal criminal act (conspiracy to demolish and murder). There is no "partly right" here. There is right and wrong. The UN does not support the US at this point, that kind of blanket statement is pretty much a no-brainer. And I'll gratuitously throw in Israel, here. Israel is in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions without pause. It's almost as if they're in a race to clog the UN system with repeated violations that need to be defined and addressed faster than they can be resolved. Sound familiar? - Plautus satire 21:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0926.html - Hi! WhisperToMe 23:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This document refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution, which was passed in 2002[35], well after the invasion of Afghanistan by the US. The UN did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. Nowhere in the UN's web archives of their SC resolutions can one find explicit support for the invasion by the United States of Afghanistan. - Plautus satire 02:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There was no SC resolution specifically on the 2001 war in Afghanistan because none was needed - the war was undertaken under the UN Charter's right of self-defence, which requires no UN endorsement. This right was affirmed unanimously by the UN Security Council shortly after 9/11. The point was noted by Secretary General Kofi Annan on 8 October 2001, who said: "Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context." See the full text of his statement at http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_10/alia/a1101021.htm . -- ChrisO 11:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but the UN does not support or endorse illegal wars like the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States. - Plautus satire 13:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know I'm being trolled, but what the heck...
A war does not automatically need the prior authorisation of the UN Security Council. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm), which says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
In the case of Afghanistan, what happened (in chronological order) was this:
  • The UN Security Council passed resolution 1333 (19 December 2000) "strongly condemning the continuing use of the areas of Afghanistan under the control of the Afghan faction known as Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (hereinafter known as the Taliban), for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security"
  • The 9/11 attacks occurred.
  • The 9/11 attacks were blamed by US on al-Qaeda, which the UN had already determined was being sheltered by the Taliban.
  • Immediately after the attacks, the UN Security Council "reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." (Or in other words, "go get 'em".)
  • The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda.
  • The United States attacked the Taliban on the basis of "individual self-defence" and Ambassador Negroponte duly notified the Security Council, as required by the UN Charter.
This is hardly rocket science. The UN did not explicitly authorise the war in Afghanistan because it did not need to. If the UN had been around in 1941, for instance, it would not have needed to authorise the US declaration of war on Japan. You should have a look to see if any countries introduced Security Council resolutions opposing the war. (Free clue - they didn't). In short, a lack of explicit UN endorsement does not by itself make a war illegal. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
ChrisO: thanks for digging out the Kofi Annan quote. However it doesn't make sense: the idea that the US was entitled to attack Afghanistan because of a state's right to self-defence is based on the assumption that Afghanistan (as a nation state) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence for that. 9/11 is thought to have been carried out by al-Qaeda and not the government of Afghanistan, and the links between both does not imply anything.Is there any evidence that the Afghan government even knew about 9/11? Did London bomb Dublin after IRA attacks? Did Washington bomb Washington after Oklahoma? It just doesn't make sense, does it. In fact al-Qaeda operates as a transnational organisation and the attack on Afghanistan has done little harm to al-Qaeda. The argument of self-defence doesn't hold. pir 19:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Pir, see my explanation above. I agree, it's questionable whether the Taliban knew about the 9/11 plot before it happened (although I suspect that the leadership probably did have some inkling of it). The key issue was that the Taliban did not surrender bin Laden nor cut off support for AQ, despite having been ordered to do so by the UN in 1999 and 2000. In other words, AQ was not simply a terrorist group operating within a country; it was a terrorist group operating openly with the active knowledge and support of that country's de facto government. This is very different to the situation with Ireland and the IRA. The conflict thus changed from being one between a state and a terrorist group, to being one between a state and another regime which was so intertwined with a terrorist group that it was itself, in effect, part of that group.
I should make one other point. The Taliban was not the "Afghan government" - it was not recognised as such internationally (if I remember rightly, Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government). Legally, the legitimate government of Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance coalition, which the Taliban had expelled from Kabul and bottled up in about 10% of Afghan territory before 9/11. If you look at the UN resolutions on Afghanistan, you'll notice that they define the Taliban as a "faction", not as the government - this is why. So our intervention in the Afghan civil war was, legally speaking, an intervention in support of the internationally recognised government against the Taliban insurgency. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the UN Charter that requires UN permission for one government to give military assistance to another. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
ChrisO: Thanks for your contribution - you are an effective advocate of the US position. You give us three different though contradictory reasons why the US-led attack on Afghanistan was legal:
[1] The Taliban were not the recognised government and the invasion was merely giving military assistance to the legitimate government. Unfortunately, as you state yourself, the US invoqued the right to "individual self-defence".
I didn't say that was the reason that the US invoked. I mentioned it to make the point that there was more than one right that the US could have invoked, if it had wanted to. -- ChrisO
[2] The Taliban refused to give up bin Laden. In fact they refused to hand him over unless the US produced evidence of his involvement in 9/11 (1). This is quite a sensible position: at that time, the US had not produced any evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility. It is doubtful that bin Laden would have received a fair trial in the US (e.g. see Guantanamo, or Bush's soundbite that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive"). EU countries routinely refuse to extradite people to the US if they risk the death penalty (outlawed in the EU). It is not unthinkable that the Taliban would have extradited bin Laden to a third country , if there had been genuine political will to choose the path of law&justice rather than war&mindless retaliation (for example the Taleban offered to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 (2) ). On Sept. 20. 2001, the shura, a council of Islamic clerics asked Osama bin Laden to leave Afghanistan voluntarily (3). On September 28., the Taliban changed their position and told bin Laden the leave the country (4). Finally, I can't see how this fits into the "individual self-defence" story.
I think there are three distinct issues to address here. The first is that because there was no extradition process between Afghanistan and the US (and the Taliban was not the recognised government anyway), there was no legal mechanism by which OBL could have been handed over.
The second is that just about every intelligence service in the world was telling its government that (a) AQ was behind the 9/11 attacks and (b) AQ and the Taliban had become so intertwined that they were, in effect, the same thing. The US concluded that the Taliban was not serious about handing over OBL. In any case, handing over OBL was *not* the key issue. The key issue was the continued existence of AQ, which the UN had already twice condemned the Taliban for sheltering. The Taliban shura would have done nothing about this issue, which was totally unacceptable to the US (understandably). You shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking OBL = al Qaeda; if OBL is ever captured, it's a certainty that US troops will stay in Afghanistan for a long time afterwards to mop up remaining AQ fighters.
The third issue is that it fits right into the middle of the "individual self-defence" story, because on September 13, 2001 Congress passed Joint Resolution 63, which stated:
Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001. [36]
Note the bit about "otherwise supported" - the resolution specifically targeted the sponsors and allies of the 9/11 terrorists, in other words the Taliban. Again, this is an entirely uncontentious principle of international law. When the US declared war on Nazi Germany in self-defence (Hitler actually declared war first, in solidarity with the Japanese), it also declared war on all of Germany's allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary etc). So in a formal sense, the war in Afghanistan actually began on September 13, although it took nearly a month more for military action to commence. -- ChrisO
[3] The attack of Afghanistan as Self-defence. Self-defence is the legitimate use of violence to protect oneself in a situation of immediate danger. If the UN allows self-defence it is in the situation where country X is attacked by country Y's military forces. How could this possibly apply to the 9/11 attacks? Al-Qaeda was is not the Afghan military. Also, there was no immediate danger as the attacks had happened already, and the danger that had existed did not just originate from Afghanistan. The attacks had been planned in Hamburg. Most of the perpetrators were Saudi. The suicide pilots had taken flight lessons in the US. etc. To accept the argument that self-defence allowed the attack of Afghanistan, is to allow the invasion of half the world's countries.
It applied for two reasons. First, AQ *was* in effect part of the Afghan (Taliban) military. Taliban troops were commanded by AQ commanders, and vice-versa. They fought alongside each other, and the two groups were so closely linked that they could effectively be considered the same. This is obviously very different from the situation in Germany - nobody could possibly argue that AQ's Hamburg cell was operating in cooperation with the German government or military.
Second, at the time there *was* a perceived "clear and present danger". I would guess from your edits that you live in the UK (as do I). However, I was actually in the US (including New York) during and immediately after 9/11. There was a very widespread fear that more "spectacular" attacks were about to occur. The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was closed because there were fears that a plane would be driven into that, too. I remember driving through Nevada and being stopped by a heavily armed National Guard unit near the Hoover Dam, which was turning back lorries for fear that they might be carrying truck bombs to blow up the dam. Intelligence agencies get reports of supposed terrorist plots all the time, but immediately after 9/11 nobody in the US wanted to take any risks, no matter how improbable they may now seem. The US wanted to destroy AQ as quickly as possible so that it would not have the opportunity to launch any more attacks. Bear in mind that at this time, nobody really knew just what its capabilities were (remember the rumours of chemical and nuclear weapons?). So the US had very good reasons to launch an immediate attack to remove what was seen as an immediate threat - waiting for a legal process to conclude would have taken far too long, could have left the US vulnerable to another AQ attack and would in any case have been political suicide for any US government in that situation.
At Wikipedia we must always strive for NPOV and not be advocates for any particular government or other group. From a NPOV, the attack of Afghanistan can not be construed as an act of self-defence.
I disagree. A NPOV would say that it was generally accepted that it was an act of self-defence (and give the arguments for this), but also recognise that some did not agree with this view (and give the arguments for that)
Even according to what you say, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan did not have the explicit "support of the United Nations" as stated wrongly in the article. It should be made clear that the UN explicitly endorsed the right to self-defence, that the US interpretation was that it allowed them to invade Afghanistan, and that this interpretation is at least questionable.That is the only point I want to make here. pir 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Who questioned its legality? Not the UN, not any of the Security Council members, nor the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Some governments did criticise it, but I think you'll find that nobody introduced UN resolutions against it. The situation was very different to Iraq or, for that matter, Kosovo. -- ChrisO 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


ChrisO : OK the central question here is that of self-defence. I'll pass on the rest.
Your reference to US Congress Resolution 63 is pretty irrelevant here, for several reasons, chiefly because it has no validity in the international arena. The copmparison to WW2 doesn't hold either, because there war was declared against countries, in this resolution it is an undefined any entity determined by the President - since when is it possible for a state to declare war against terrorist groups?
I agree that just after the attacks an imminent danger was perceived - but this was by the US population not necessarily by the government. You would need to convince us that there was evidence of an imminent threat (I don't think there is any). Secondly you would need to show how exactly the war on Afghanistan could possibly have averted a hypothtical second wave of attacks (the war didn't start until about 3 weeks later, and as I have pointed out, the attacks were not organised in Afghanistan).
Btw. we are not splitting hairs here. The reality of the situation is that a country which spends over $400 billion on what they call "defence", more than the fifteen next countries combined, is invading countries on spurious grounds, but claiming it the be 'self-defence'. Just reflect on this for a second.
I am glad that you give away the real reason for the Afghanistan war in an aside: [ waiting for a legal process] would in any case have been political suicide for any US government in that situation. The simple truth is that the 9/11 attacks humiliated the world's remaining superpower, and there was incredible pressure for the US to launch military action to restore "credibility" . (This was of course exactly what al-Qaeda had wanted and aimed for). Everybody knew that was going to be the response and that's also why the UN and many nations did not protest but tried to make the best of it. However, it was not an act of self-defence, it was an act of blind retaliation. The proof is that the war on Afghanistan made al-Qaeda stronger rather than weaker, and it did not make the US safer (even politicians keep on insisting that the danger persists).
Do we agree on the following: ?
[1] the UN did not 'explicitly' endorse the invasion of Afghanistan ;
[2] the UN did 'explicitly' endorse the right to self-defence ;
[3] the US claims the war on Afghanistan to be an act of self-defence
[4] we should include any effects of the invasion that fit into the self-defence story, as well as those that do not.
The best is to let facts speak for themselves. Sorry, I won't have Internet access for a week. pir 02:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Absolutely, that point needs to be made. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I would not call it questionable at all, Pir. Remmeber that the UN condemned the Taliban and Al-Qaida and agreed to help freeze funds. WhisperToMe 04:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - please explain how the invasion of Afghanistan constitutes self-defence. I just don't get it. pir 04:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if the U.S. did not invade Afghanistan, then the Taliban would still have been sheltering the leadership of Al-Qaida, and all of the characters that are part of the organization (Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, etc) would still be playing an active role. By attacking the Taliban, the United States removed the government that protected Al Qaida. Therefore, they were able to attack Al-Qaida fiercely. Al-Qaida is still existing, yet many of its core members have been killed or captured. By invading Afghanistan, the U.S. was able to damage Al-Qaida severely. WhisperToMe 04:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, I fear you're kidding yourself. The war on Afghanistan established al-Qaeda as a serious adversary of the US and led to a great recruiting drive. Any damage that it did to al-Qaeda had been anticipated.The net effect was to make al-Qaeda stronger. Watch out for the next attacks. pir 02:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I disagree. The war helped nab important guys like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned many spectacular plots, some of which actually worked, and some of which didn't. Helped make Operation Bojinka back in 1995! Now that he is gone, Al Qaida suffered a huge brain drain... Also, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi Binalshibh have been captured. And Mohammed Atef is dead. All of this is due to the war. Al-Qaida has been an adversary since 1992, when they first attacked a hotel in Yemen. The attack only killed two tourists instead of soldiers, but by 1998, Al-Qaida got somewhat large recognition, and by 2001, it became a household name for terrorism... WhisperToMe 03:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the Taliban had bin Laden in custody? In order to "turn over" bin Laden they would have to take him into custody. Was this possible? Was this practical within the arbitrary timeline established by the Pentagon? - Plautus satire 05:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that the US invasion of Afghanistan has impaired "Al-Qaida" in any significant way? By the way, I'd like to point out that the Mossad has already been busted once trying to set up phony al Qaeda "terrorist" cells in Gaza. How many more setups like this have there been? - Plautus satire 05:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The United Nations Security Council demanded that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (aka the Taliban) hand over Osama. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan responded by saying they would not turn Osama over until the U.S. provided evidence that he was guilty. A shura formed in Afghanistan, and made a recommendation to the Taliban leadership to make Osama leave Afghanistan, thereby protecting Afghanistan from invasion. The U.S. rejected that idea. Kingturtle 05:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Also no evidence was provided that the Taliban had or could acquire custody of bin Laden. There wasn't even so much as a shred of evidence bin Laden was even in Afghanistan until his funeral in December of 2001. - Plautus satire 05:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
His funeral? Did I miss something along the way? -- ChrisO 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 7

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See also Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at:

Reversion of talk pages?

By the way, where do we discuss reversion of talk pages? We need talk talk pages I guess, with SheikYerBooty around lumping all these sections back into one long ramble. Going to be hell to pay when it comes time to archive, it's much easier to rename the sections rather than delete them and inevitably have to add them back in later. Measure once and cut twice, SheikYerBooty, that's what my dad always told me. - Plautus satire 05:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles

Why is there a link to Globalisation?? It doesn't seem particularly relevant and should be removed. pir 04:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing on that article that refers to 9/11. -- ChrisO 20:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, I've removed the intentionally disruptive and misleading section headings that you gratuitously inserted into the middle of other users' responses. Your constant manipulation of talk pages make it's very difficult for interested observers and participants to follow the discussion. --SheikYerBooty 05:37, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, are you for real? Is there a person back there or are you on autopilot? - Plautus satire 05:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's surname

"bin Laden" is indeed Osama's family name (or patronym, more precisely): it means "son of Laden". His full name is Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden (Mohammed is his father's name, Laden is his grandfather's, from whom the rest of his family take their last name). See http://www.arab.net/arabnames/ for more info on the Arab naming conventions and http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp for how it applies to OBL specifically. -- ChrisO 10:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See: Osama bin Laden.
"Strictly speaking, under the Arabic naming convention, it is incorrect to use "bin Laden" as though it was a Western surname. His full name means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Laden". However, the Bin Laden family (or Binladin as they prefer to be known) generally use the name as a surname, in the Western style. The family company is known as Binladin Brothers for Contracting and Industry and is one of the largest corporations in Saudi Arabia. For this reason, although the Arabic convention would be to refer to him either as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden," using "bin Laden" is in accordance with the family's own usage of the name and is the near-universal convention in Western references to him." WhisperToMe 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Umm. Check the history - I wrote that, after some more research on the issue... -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Someone just added a section on 9/11 as war crimes. I would have thought that the reason several countries enacted specific anti-terrorism laws was that this wasn't a matter of war crimes. Anyone know how international law applies to this? Rmhermen 13:49, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

That is a very good question. The answer isn't at all clear, principally because there are so few precedents. There's an interesting article at http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-November/006708.html which discusses some of the issues. I suspect that it probably would count as a war crime (one can envisage crimes against humanity) being a possible charge) but there are many political issues bound up in this as well. -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would assume that one reason the war crimes issue has not been highlighted is that there was no obvious state actor to bring to trial. I would venture another is that the public mind is not directed toward the concept of war crimes being committed against a major power, as evidenced by the lack of UN resolutions, etc., declaring it a war crime. Consider also the possibility that without an obvious state actor, many people do not consider this a war. Cecropia 15:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
War crimes charges do not necessarily have to be leveled against a state actor. The majority of those charged by the Yugoslav war crimes tribunals have been non-state actors - the Bosnian Serbs and Croats, the Croatian Serbs and the Kosovo Albanians have all been non-state actors, as have the Serbian paramilitaries. An even more obvious example of this involves the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, which the International Criminal Court is now investigating for war crimes following a request from the Ugandan government [37]. As far as I know, any person or group is capable of being charged. I don't think a state can collectively be charged - the governments of Serbia, Croatia, Germany and Japan were not charged as entities in their respective war crimes tribunals.
With regard to war crimes being committed against major powers, that was a large part of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war trials. It's been rather overshadowed by the issue of the Holocaust, but one of the chief issues of both trials was that of illegal attacks on other countries (Poland, Russia, the US etc). There were also trials for war crimes committed against individual soldiers of the major powers (principally killings of prisoners by German and Japanese forces). -- ChrisO 17:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I was examining why the public (and worse, the media, who have not bothered to educate themselves on laws of war during wartime) does not view 9/11 as a war crime. Some are aruging it was a "crime against humanity." This is correct—it was a "crime against humanity" which also involved identifable war crimes. Cecropia 17:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
War crimes don't presuppose a state actor, but they do presuppose a war. The section is legally nonsensical (and that's before we start on the grammar). Markalexander100 03:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In what sense is the section "legally nonsensical"? It is a war and specific sections of valid international law are quoted. Cecropia 04:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"It is a war" What is a war? There's a fairly major difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. This was the latter. Markalexander100 05:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hague III refers to the commencement of hostilities requiring a declaration of war (either immediate or conditional). The lack of declaration doesn't make it not a war, the fact of the lack of declaration may make the commencement a violation of the laws of war, and may have some effect in the domestic legal status of one or both of the belligerents. In the case of the WTC bombing, the war once the first building of the WTC was hit. The belligerants in the war are the United States of America and Al Queda and its allies. Cecropia 06:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Unindenting, for readability). Declaration or otherwise is a separate issue (see below). Merriam Webster: "war: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". Or try the UN: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime". Take your pick- terrorism or war crime? Markalexander100 06:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For those who didn't follow the link (Terrorism = Peacetime War Crime) that was a proposed short definition in 1992 that doesn't carry the weight of either law or agreement. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in black and white:

  • Fourth Geneva Convention, article 2: "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them"
  • Annex to the Hague convention, article 2: "The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers".

Unsurprisingly, Al Quaeda is not a party to either treaty. Markalexander100 08:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your point is good so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough if you are implying (1) that terrorism vs. war crimes is an either/or proposition or that (2) that since al Queda is not a signatory of Geneva or Hague, ir is not guilty of war crimes vis a vis WTC.
I've made the point here (I think) and in other related articles that terrorism is not a thing in itself so much as a tactic in war, a point made just yesterday (23 March 2004) by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie S. Gorelick (former deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration) who said "[...]terrorism is a tool. It is not an enemy in itself; it's a tool."
Al Queda not being a signatory to any of the laws of war does not render it immune from the consequences of being a belligerent and its conduct as such. It's true that they are not bound by Geneva and Hague, but if they refuse to agree to adhere to those conventions (which they can do without being signatories) they lose all of the protections of those conventions. By attacking a signatory nation, they are defenseless to law of war remedies. The attacked signatory nation is still entitled to treat them in accordance with the provisions of Geneva and Hague. In short, if they bomb civilian targets (like the WTC) they cannot avoid retaliations, military tribunals and other remedies prescribed by the laws of war by saying "well, we can do those things (but you can't) because we don't agree to the law." This is part of what Guantanamo is all about. You can't fail to meet the requirements of lawful combatants in the Conventions and then say, "you have to give us all the rights of Prisoners of War."
As an aside, it is even arguable that al Queda and other groups can fully claim they are non-signatories, because the nations that harbor them almost always are. Put another way, if the US and Britain were to decide to outsource their war making powers to an NGO contract organization, that would not free either power from the position of belligerent, nor allow the NGO organization to avoid the consequences of violating the wars of law. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No- look further down in article 2 (Geneva 4): "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." In other words, a signatory need only follow the convention against a non-signatory if the non-signatory voluntarily follows it (the Guantanamo point); AQ certainly hasn't followed it, but the corollary is simply that the US is not bound by the convention regarding AQ, not that AQ is bound. Trust me, I'm a lawyer. ;) Markalexander100 01:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, counselor, I think you're going to have to explain the fine points to your "expert witness," because I don't see where we're disagreeing. Don't both our arguments boil down to "AQ can't benefit from Geneva unless they adhere to it, signatory or not"? Cecropia 03:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly they can't benefit from it- that's the Guantanamo point. But not benefiting from a treaty is not the same as being liable under it. AQ is not a party to the treaty. Therefore the treaty imposes no obligations on it. This is a basic principle of international law: a treaty between countries A and B can't impose duties on country C (or even group of homicidal fanatics C). September 11 was many things, but a war crime under Geneva 4 or Hague it was not. Markalexander100 05:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This somehow reminds me of an old Bob & Ray routine where they do a piece on a criminal, and then at the end a voice sums up: "Louie the Lump was convicted of two counts of murder, but since murder is not illegal under California Statutes, he was released."
That is, I see your point, but it is would be more accurate to say that September 11 did involve war crimes as defined under Geneva and Hague, but that the perpetrators cannot be directly punished under the Conventions since they are not bound by them, but they (meaning their superiors and protectors, obviously, since the immediate perpetrators are dead) are still liable to severe punishment (including death or reprisal) without the aggrieved power being in violation of international law. To not note this in a layman's encyclopedia is to leave hanging the implication that not being parties to the written laws of war immunizes a non-signatory from liability. Cecropia 06:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We may be in sight of some sort of agreement! How about: "The September 11 attacks would have been war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibit X Y and Z. However, because AQ is not a party to these conventions, criminal liability falls to be determined under US domestic law rather than international law". Markalexander100 06:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I would word it a little differently, which I will explain anon:
"The September 11 attacks would have involved a number of war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention. However, because [AQ] is not a party to these conventions, liability and punishment falls to be determined under appropriate US law rather than international law".
I used "number of war crimes" to indicate specificity, rather than just say "it was a war crime." This is especially true because certain of the crimes apply to both Pentagon and WTC (the killing of the civilians on the planes) but others only to WTC (Pentagon is a legitimate military target, WTC was not). I reworded the US law section to remove the implication that this becomes a straightforward criminal matter that must be pursued according to criminal law in civilian jurisdiction. I would definitely keep the specific citations of Geneva and Hague, so people know some of the war crimes we're talking about.
As an aside, perhaps an important aside, neither of our wordings deal with the issue of War by Proxy, insofar as al Queda is supported, protected and funded by, and represents the interests of, powers who are signatory to the Conventions. These include most of the states that provide one or another type of support to organizations like al Queda. Even if their attitude is merely permissive ("we don't support them, they're merely on our territory") they risk their standing as neutral nations. Remember Uruguay and the Graf Spee. Cecropia 06:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've put that wording in. The possible connections between AQ and various states (Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?) are very shadowy; I doubt there's much we can usefully say about it. As far as I know, the US government didn't even accuse Afghanistan of having an active part in the plot. Let's save that one for another day. Markalexander100 07:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, now we can put it to bed! :) Cecropia 07:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed the point about no declaration of war from the war crimes section and I thought I should justify this. The list is stated to be a partial, easily justifiable, non-complete list of war crimes that could be charged over 9/11. In keeping with this I thought it important to remove anything that could be easily argued against. The statments attributed to OBL in the articles from date prior to September 2001 clearly say that his organization is fighting against the US, this in effect a declaration of war. Yes I accept that it isn't a formal decrlaration of war, but Al Qadeir (spelling?) are not a true state actor and can't really enter into standard formal declarations. Anyway I thought it better not to include an arguable point in a partial list Steven jones 05:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The form of a declaration of war is proposed but not mandatory, usually along the lines of "The Republic of Ruritania declares that, as of 1200 hours, 17 January 2004, a state of war exists between the Republic and the Kingdom of Blatting." However, this specific wording is not required, but what is required is "that hostilities between [the parties] must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Did Omasa provide that? "explicit warning"? "clear and reasoned"? Can you point me to any published reference? TIA, Cecropia 06:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No I can't, but I haven't looked and IANAL (not to mention that I can't speak Arabic, which I presume would be the language any declaration would be made in), so I'm not even sure I would be definatively state a declaration was made even if I saw it, also others (meelar later on this page), seem to believe there was one. Which is the real reason I made the mod. When the list, by its own definition is an "incomplete compilation", why weaken it with arguably false claims Steven jones 08:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I accept that the issue of whether there was a valid declaration of war is debatable, but I'm curious as to what form it might have taken. "previous and explicit warning" and "reasoned declaration" mean that the declaration must be in some form that your intended enemy knows what you intend to do. Does a comment in a TV interview that "we will destroy America", especially if not in a language readily understandable to be US do it? Would a picture postcard "Dear US imperialist. We're going to use all means to destroy you. Kind regards, the 433rd Anti-American Brigade (Provisional)"? It's an interesting, if perhaps academic subject, but you could see some possible consequences. That is, was there a declaration before the 1993 bombing of the WTC? If the U.S. believed the declaration, and that a state of war existed, it might not have tried the case as a criminal issue in open court, and susbequent history might have been different. Cecropia 14:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there any claim by al-quaeda that they attacked the towers? Any evidence or judgement that they did? It seems to me that this is an assumption that was not established as fact. am I wrong?Pedant 02:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Over times there have been multiple claims from individuals in al Queda (included UBL) alluding to responsibility for 9/11. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why on 9/11?

Looking at recent edits, I think too much meaning is being placed on "Why 9/11"? Especially remember that, in most of the world, 9/11/2001 is 11.9.2001. I think that is true in Saudi Arabia, country of most of the hijackers, even assuming that would run to the common calendar rather than the Arabic one for arcane meaning.

In most parts of Europe it is written as 11-9-2001. Either way, since the / is not smart for use in URLs, I would choose 9-11 as the better notation. Julius 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to the issue of rescue personnel, New York had plenty on hand--look how many were on the scene to die in such a short time after the first plane hit.

I remember the day well, living in New York. It was a clear day, perfect for minimally experienced pilots to navigate to and hit the towers. If the day had been overcast (especially since the tops of the towers were often shrouded in fog or clouds) they may have had to pick a different day. This is not my original theory, but it makes sense. Cecropia 23:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some of the rescue vehicles were out of town was one of the theories. I guess there could have been more vehicles or something? Mabye its the absence of the type of vehicles required for skyscrapers? Perl 23:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I really doubt that. NYC has a HUGE emergency service department and they wouldn't send a significant number of any emergency vehicles out of town. The real problem (emergency services-wise) is that, above a certain floor level, you can't do anything from the outside of skyscrapers. That's why NYC firefighters are required to be so fit. Tapes of radio transmissions from the FDNY in the building showed that some of the firefighters actually made it to one of the floors (I think in Tower Two) where one of the planes hit--running up 60-odd flights of stairs. Cecropia 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a cite for that "theory"? We're an encyclopedia, not a rumor column. Let's only keep theories that are verifiable in established primary or secondary sources. Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

9/11 was a week after the end of congress' summer holiday. Therefore, most of the congressmen and US senators were in the Capitole. And the 4th plane was suposed to be crashed on that monument. I think that's an explanation given by the 9/11 comission.

Possible misidentification of victims

Please justify removal of this paragraph:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [38]. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that many of the men identified as suicide hijackers were still alive and may have been victims of identity theft [39]. Although FBI director Robert Mueller did initially acknowlege that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt [40], the FBI still identifies them by the names they were using at the time

Newer version:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [41].
As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that the indentities of at least four of the men identified as suicide hijackers were in doubt. The Telegraph of the UK was the first to interview four men whose personal details, including place and date of birth, name, and occupation, were listed on the FBI's list of hijackers. [42] [43]

This entire passage was put there by Plautus Satire (now banned for a year by the way) as part of some sort of implication that at least some of the Sep 11 hijackers were still alive and there was some kind of FBI conspiracy in which false names were knowingly sent out by the FBI - or something like that anyway. It is a bit hard to follow exactly what he was trying to say, but its reliability and neutrality must be held in doubt. Once again, we can do without that kind of POV thing in this article. Period.

Putting this aside, there is the question of relevancy. What we have listed here is a stage in FBI investigations that took place after the events of the day, in which it was established that some of the hijackers had suspect IDs. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not really relevant to an area that gives earlier revelations as to what organisation was behind the attacks. The newer version quoted above is certainly better, but the irrelevancy remains. Perhaps this should go to the Sep 11 timelines.

Actually, the whole "earlier revelations" bit does bother me, because it reads more like a subjective "it was America's fault!" essay than a NPOV account of evidence uncovered and statements issued as to who was behind the attacks. But my main problem is just that first paragraph.

BTW, I'm also puzzled about this section's title- the hijackers were victims?? How does that make sense? Arno 10:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleting terrorist

I'm surprised at KingTurtle, an admin, removing the word "terrorist" from the description of the 9/11 attacks as POV. I don't even think the terrorists themselves think the attacks (at least the 3000 non-combtanat civilians killed in the WTC attack) weren't terror attacks. What were they then. If these attacks aren't terrorist we should simply delete the entry under terrorism in Wikipedia, and give it a REDIRECT to newspeak. Cecropia 00:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I totally support your revert. If premeditated mass murder of innocent civilians isn't terrorism, nothing is. You are correct that Al Qaeda itself views 9/11 as terrorism-- a somehow justified terrorism. If KingTurtle wants to join them in sanctioning it he is free to do so, but he shouldn't turn language upside down in the process. JDG 02:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The word terrorist was removed from the title of this article and it should be removed from the first paragraph of the article as well. The word terrorist is POV, IMHO. You ask me what were they then and my reply is they were attacks. Why do we need any adjective in front of the word "attacks"? The people working on the terrorism article can't come up with an easy definition of the term. The word is loaded with meanings and submeanings. Kingturtle 02:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Therefore you think that maybe they weren't terrorist attacks? The fact isn't POV, only the label is. So you think a NPOV encyclopedia should avoid an obvious truth that some consider controversial—that's a POV in itself. For that matter calling it a "suicide" attack is POV and politically freighted. Death to the perpetrators was an "effect", not a motivation, as is true suicide. Why not call them a "homicide" attack as some do? As I said, newspeak. Cecropia 02:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I concur, this is precisely the nonsense that I feared. Terrorist is not some evil word not be to be uttered, and it mist be used in the articl. Arno 06:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Placing a value-judgement adjective in front of a noun does not represent an obvious truth. There is no reason to place such an adjective. You won't believe it, but calling any attack a terrorist attack is newspeak. When asked why he supported the terrorist attacks of the Contras, Ronald Reagan said they weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters. So we get to pick and choose which is which, depending on what side they are on. As I said, our fellow wikipedians cannot even come up with a fair definition on terrorism. I'd rather call this article 9/11 - IMHO that is the most NPOV title we could have. Kingturtle 06:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
News Headline: 3,000 KILLED BY NUMBER! Cecropia 07:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's all you have to say? No comments about value-judgments encased in some words? No comments about why an adjective must or must not be placed in front of the noun? No comments about Reagan's doublespeak - a doublespeak that supports the idea that the term terrorism is POV? No comment about the difficulty in defining the word terrorism? Kingturtle 07:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
LOL! Spot on Cecropia - unlike KingTurtle PMA 07:11, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
The only real issue is this: does any substantial number of people not consider these attacks terrorist? I strongly suspect not. Thus it is not a violation of our NPOV policy to characterize something as being part of a category when that fact is not seriously disputed. The name issue was a separate matter - the word simply is not used commonly enough in the title of the event for us to use it. It was not removed because it was "POV." It is also an absurd notion to think that titles are anything but POV since one and only one term can be used as the main title of any topic. --mav
Fair points. Kingturtle 18:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I had some satiric fun at your expensive, Kingturtle, but I have a hard time resisting a good straight line. Nevertheless, it made my point, which point was elucidated very nicely be mav—at some point, by avoiding a correct and commonly understood usage, it become more POV to avoid the term than use it.
That's ok. we all need a good laugh :) Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
However, I beg you look at the opening definition I have proposed at terrorism/draft. You see, terrorism is not an end in itself (unless you're psychotic, perhaps); it is a tactic in warfare. "Terrorist" is not an occupation (unless you're strictly a mercenary, and not many terrorists seem to be); it is a tactic, a method of warfare that is proscribed by the laws of war—it is this recognition that causes those who practice to the craft to tend to take one of two rhetoric tacks: (1) to redefine themselves: "i'm not a terrorist; i'm a freedom fighter" or to redefine the term: "maybe i'm a terrorist, but you're one too, so we're even." Either way, it doesn't alter the definition of the term.
One other point, though: the fact that you bring up "Reagan's doublespeak" certainly implies that you feel that the Contras were terrorists but that Reagan was lying by calling them "freedom fighters." A fair enough observation. I wouldn't use Ronald Reagan as my standard for political word definition and I imagine you don't either. Let me propose another point. Given my assertion that terrorism is a tactic not an end in itself, could you consider that (balancing the poles of the political spectrum) that the Contras on one hand, and the PLO on the other hand, could be both freedom fighters and terrorists? One is the goal, the other the method. Cecropia 19:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My point about Reagan is that langauge can be used to paint the exact same action as terrorism or as not terrorism. Same action+different POV = different words used to describe the actions. Depending on one's personal politics, the Contras were terrorists or they were freedom fighters; the PLO were terrorists or they were freedom fighters. Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? That's the trouble with using only one of the words. Potentially, we could call September 11, 2001 attacks Jihad attacks, Kamikaze attacks, suicide attacks, terrorist attacks, Al-Qaida attacks, etc. etc. I look forward to reading the terrorism/draft. Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia, 3 years ago I would have agreed with you that terrorism is a tactic, and that therefore the word terrorist should be used here to describe 9/11.
However I support Kingturtle: we should not use terrorist here, especially in a prominent place such as title or introduction. The reason is that since 9/11, terrorism and the "War on Terror" have been used by all kinds of politicians and governments (esp. the US government and its allies) to get support for policies for which it would normally have been very difficult to obtain popular support , e.g. Iraq was supposedly invaded to combat terrorists, the Russians devastated Chechnya in the name of fighting terrorism, China re-defined Falun Gong as terrorist, the government of Burma feels free to kill KNU oppisitionists because it classifies them as terrorist. The result of all this propaganda is that the meaning of the word terrorist has slightly changed. To call someone or something terrorist is to make a moral judgment: to label it as "wrong", "evil", to delegitimise.
Like the vast majority of people everywhere, I think that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist and morally wrong. But: Wikipedia is not there to make moral judgements or to tell right from wrong, it is there to inform people - and leave them to make up their own mind.
We must be careful about how language is used at Wikipedia: do we use it as a tool to communicate knowledge in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV ideal ; or do we use it as a tool for spreading particular points of view. pir 00:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, Pir, yet we can separate out at least some acts under the kind of definition we are (hopefully) working toward in terrorism/draft. I have to return to the point that 9/11 were the quintessential terrorist attacks. Since you see terrorist as a label of "wrong", "evil" and "delegitimizing"; you need to look at the issue before us. If you are arguing that the use of treachery to hijack civilian planes to murder some 3,000 innocent men, women and children having their morning coffee isn't "wrong" and "evil", what is? Do you feel that it is a legitimate war tactic? Virtually every international treaty and convention (and UN resolution) for 150-odd years says it isn't. If we can't use the word "terrorism" for the bulk of the deaths on 9/11 (possible exception that the pentagon is a legitimate war target) than we should be work to eliminate the word in every article in Wikipedia. Cecropia 04:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia, I don't think you really understood me. Compare the following:
The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.
The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.
The word terrorist doesn't add one bit of information. No reader will have any doubts about their terrorist nature (unless they support the goals and methods of al-Qaeda). The difference between terrorist and non-terrorist uses of violence is that terrorist ones are illegitimate. To call 9/11 involves making a moral judgement.
Of course I think that 9/11 was terrorist - and that it was therefore illegitimate and criminal. But I think the same is true of Hiroshima and Dresden and many Western-supported counter-insurgency operations - a view many here will disagree with. In fact I think Hiroshima was very much a "quintessential" terrorist attack, much more so than 9/11.
My point is that it is not for us at Wikipedia to tell readers that 9/11 or Hiroshima or Dresden were "wrong" and "evil" and "illegal" - it is to provide facts and report various views of these facts, so that the reader is in a position to make his/her moral judgements themselves. Wikipedia ought to be a source of objective knowledge, not a moral authority ; an encyclopedia, not a bible.
That is not to say that the word "terrorist" should be banned from Wikipedia - we only need to specify who thinks that a particular attack is "terrorist", and who thinks it is not. This would be far more elucidating and informative anyway. pir 21:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


International treaties are craftily written so that terrorist acts performed by nation-states are not covered under their definition of terrorism. If 9/11 was a terrorist attack, then wasn't the My Lai Massacre a terrorist attack? Shouldn't it be called the My Lai terrorist attack? What about dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima? Wasn't that a military tactic used in warfare that targeted civilian populations in a manner prohibited by the laws of war? The laws of war stipulate protecting noncombatants from unnecessary suffering. Wasn't its purpose to force Japan to terms favorable to the U.S. by creating fear and demoralization among civilian population in Japan? How many 1,000s of innocent men, women, and children were killed that day? See, the way the rules are written for terrorism, nation-states don't feel their acts fall under terrorism. What about the Bombing of Dresden in World War II? Kingturtle 04:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Read my points above again please. --mav
"Craftily written" shows an inappropriate reading of the origins of the laws of war. You are implying that the central issues of laws of war were to enable big powers to dictate that what they do is fine, but what irregular forces do is prohibited. Hardly. You are trying to fit centuries of historical precedent into a jaundiced 2004 view. The laws of war were written when terrorism in the modern sense did not exist as an important factor in determining methods of warfare; rather they were written as agreements of what was fair and what was not in order to reduce (though not eliminate, obviously) the horrors of warfare (especially toward non-combatants) by reducing the instances of horrible retaliation.
As to your specific examples?
My Lai? Almost certainly a war crime, possibly a terrorist act. If Calley was carrying out orders to massacre civilians, both he and the government committed a war crime. If he didn't act under orders, he and his men who participated were guilty of war crimes.
Hiroshima? The answer turns on at least three issues: (1) depending on whether Japan was using the civilian areas for military purposes; (2) whether the act was proportional to the military objective gained; and (3) the often-ignored point that Japan foreswore the rules of combat at the beginning of the war, and carried out that decision ruthlessly, placing them at risk for retaliation that is otherwise prohibited. Answer: Maybe.
Dresden? I'm not completely familiar with all the aspects of the action, but my gut feeling is almost certainly terrorism, but problematic as to it's being officially so in a prosecutorial sense because under the rules of retaliation we have to consider whether or not it was an appropriate and proportional retaliation for the extensive and intentional V2 bombing of civilian populations in London and other English locations. So my answer here is also probably as to its being terrorism, but probably not actionable as such under international law.
So what have we proven? I think you're too hung up on the word "terrorism." And of your three examples, only My Lai potentially fits your implication that rules of war are written to favor state actors over non-state actors. Both Japan and Germany were state actors, in spades.
But I hope I have demonstrated to you that, by addressing your three examples, terrorism can be defined without necessarily prejudicing the result by sympathy to the parties. And I have to return to the question: do you favor expunging all references to terrorism in this article and every article in Wikipedia? Do you think this is NPOV or serves the reader? Is it shocking to consider that Wikipedia is ultimately a resource for the reader rather than a playground for the editor? Cecropia 06:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In answer to your edit summary, bin Laden actually did declare war against the U.S. in a TV interview in 1997. He actually used that exact phrase. Meelar 06:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


APPENDIX

Further speculation and studies of September 11, 2001 attacks:

A few key contemporary/historical terms and concerns:

- U.S. Government support of Al-Quaeda in the Balkans - U.S., Brittish, and Saudi Oil companies and Bin Laden - Anti-Israeli/American Movements (such as Black September / Abu Nidal which date back decades) - March 11, 2004 Spanish Attack - Mysterious death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone following September 11. - Significance of the language barrier in U.S. anti-terrorist intelligence. - Credible experts in related fields:

John Wolfsthal Joseph Wilson John Hamre James Woolsey Anthony Cordesman Robert Baer Rachel Bronson

Speculative research: http://whitecloud.com/wag_the_dog.htm#Did bin Laden have help from U.S. friends

I think that belongs more in the conspiracy theories section. --Rei
Please read the articles before you discount them as conspiracies. The Jean-Charles Brisard book is internationally acclaimed, and utilized heavy factual documentation as supporting evidence for reasonable speculation. This is not UFO type stuff.

Symbolic meaning of 9/11

Is the symbolic meaning of 9/11 discussed anywhere in Wikipedia? Obviously, mass killing was not the only purpose of the perpetrators. What they attacked were symbols of America's economic (WTC) and military (Pentagon) dominance (they probably also wanted to hit the White House - symbol of America's political power).
--Kpalion 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

20 hijackers?

The article says "There were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I know of no evidence that this is the case. Can this be verified? Quadell 02:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui and Ramzi Binalshibh ;) WhisperToMe 03:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you count them both, that's 21, not 20. I've seen accustations of more participants (including actions that never happened, because planes were grounded), so maybe there were 30. Or 50. Or maybe every suspected al qaida member living in the US should be a suspect, so there are at least 1,000 or so suspected hijackers. Point being that being accused of being a hijacker is not the same as evidence that there were actual plans to have 20 hijackers. Ronabop 05:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ronabop, the U.S. Government asserts that Binalshibh was at first the "20th hijacker", but could not take that title as he could not enter the U.S. on his Yemeni visa. So, they got another guy, Moussaoui, to be the "20th hijacker", but he got arrested shortly before 9/11. WhisperToMe 12:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: the U.S. Government no longer asserts that. [News24.com] The FBI asserts that Moussaoui "played no part in the 9/11 scheme and was only a minor player in al-Qaeda."

Please note: the above News24 reference does not contradict this article. Al-Qaeda had decided that Moussaoui was to be kept out due to unsuitability. Therefore, he was always a minor player in the Sep 11 story. Arno 10:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the phrase "twentieth hijacker", what I mean is, I've heard it often asserted that there were to be a fifth hijacker on the fourth plane, bringing the total to twenty. But I've never heard any support for this claim besides the tenuous "Well, there were five on the others. . ." That seems a pretty weak rationale for the dramatic assertion that there is a would-be 9/11 hijacker that got away.

(This is wholly separate from the suggestion that other planes were to be hijacked. There are unconfirmed reports that other hijackings were prevented by flight delays or the flight ban. The UK even reported that hijackers were going to crash a plane into Big Ben, but were stopped, although no evidence of this was offered.)

Zacarias Moussaoui was in contact with the 9/11 hijackers, and considers himself a member of al-Qaeda, but there is no evidence (that I know of) that he was ever slated to be a 9/11 hijacker. The Justice Department no longer contends he was ever a "twentieth hijacker".

Ramzi Binalshibh may have also been a "twentieth hijacker", but again, I know of no evidence. It seems to me equally likely that al-Qaeda planned to have six hijackers per plane, and five were prevented -- or that al-Qaeda simply wanted to have at least four per plane, and divided their resources semi-equally. I don't think "twenty" is a magic number to anyone except the pundits. Speaking of "the role of the 20th hijacker" is just speculation.

I therefore suggest that the following paragraph:

There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers. Binalshibh was meant to be the 20th, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability.

. . .be replaced with:

There are suggestions that original plans may have included additional hijackers and, perhaps, additional planes as well. Ramzi Binalshibh may initially have been selected to be a hijacker in the 9/11 operation, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

Quadell 14:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion objected to. The revelations are as reported by Yosri Fouda , who has a lot of research on Al-Qaeda. I suggest that you read "Masterminds of Terror", by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, or do some google searching (eg this page or this one).

The sources - what the terrorists said - also appear at the top of the passage , that you're disputing, as terrorist admissions. This change that you want means that you are in effect misquoting them. What the terrorists have stated to is first hand stuff. Arno 09:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we change the second sentence to be "may have been intended to be a hijacker". How you propose wording it, it sound like he may have been on the planes. Steven jones 02:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Right-o. Done. Quadell 12:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be links to our Propaganda wikipedia entry? Consider the terms "misinformation", and "disinformation". These two terms came into full bloom during and following the 911 fiasco. Given that we will not know what happened for decades if ever, we should allow for dicussion of conflicting information.

Objections to reversion

Part 1

Recently I suggested replacing one paragraph with another. A few days later, when no one had yet objected, I made the change. Afterwards, Arno objected and reverted it. The two paragraphs, before and after, are above.

As I see it, there are still inaccuracies in the paragraph as it now stands, and I think they ought to be fixed.

First of all, Arno directed me to the following fascinating article. It reveals that Binalshibh was selected to be a pilot, but that he couldn't get into the U.S. and had to be replaced. Only afterwards were the other hijackers selected. The article doesn't support the notion that "there were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I suspect the "20 highjackers" idea is an invention by the press. I don't know of any evidence that al-Qaeda considered 20 to be better than 19 or 21. So I'd recommend references to "the role of 20th hijacker" be removed.

Second, the paragraph as it now stands baldly states "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability." That doesn't seem to be the case. I know of no evidence that Moussaoui was involved in any way with 9/11. The FBI no longer asserts Moussaoui was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Why is it stated as a fact?

I'd recommend replacing the paragraph with something factual we can agree on. And I'd recommend that no one unilaterally revert it afterwards.

Here's my suggestion:

Senior al-Qaeda officials have revealed that an additional pilot, Ramzi Binalshibh, was originally intended to take part in the attacks. When he was repeatedly denied entry into the US, a replacement pilot was found. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

What does everyone think? Can this be improved?

Quadell 16:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better than what is there currently. Mdchachi 18:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think this paragraph is better then what is currently there but I would remove the last sentence. I think rumours should go in the 911 rumour article, not in this one. Steven jones 02:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Part 2

I say that this paragraph is wrong, period, and it's best improved by getting rid of it.

What was said originally was based on al-Jazeera interviews and what was released by US authorities.

As regards Moussaoui, the terrorists stated that he was considered as the 20th hijacker and even trained for it. He was linked to the terrorist cells that carried out the Sep 11 attacks. But he was never made part of the plot because he was considered unsuitable( too clumsy, apparently). See Chapter 9 of the book I mentioned above, or try this recent article for an account dated April 15, as opposed to the News24 article which is dated October last year. Also, try this April 14 article as a second source about the FBI and Moussaoui. They tie Moussaoui in with the Sep 11 plot, albeit dormantly. Also, try this msnbcand this jihad watch article. One hypothesis was that he was going to be part of a series of followup attacks.

At no point did I say that there were 21 hijackers. Ramzi was considered for the 20th. When this fell through, Moussaoui was considered but never included. Period.

The article also says that Khalid originally wanted to use ten planes (five each) on the US east and west coasts, but that this got cancelled very early on. The Washington Post article supports this. So do this Australian article and this one.

All this is also supported in an interrogation report that admittedly I have not seen.

Sources enough, I think, to justify my move that this whole attempt at rewording this paragraph on the grounds given was ill-advised.

On another note, you lodged your proposal during Easter , when I was away on wikivacation. I suspect that others were, too. Hence the delay in responding to the incorrect statements. Arno 08:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with the paragraph as it stands, is that it doesn't attribute its info. It sounds like the writer of the paragraph was a terrorist and knew exactly what happened. Why not add something like "According to law enforcement officials, Khalid said that..." Mdchachi 13:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno, the news pages you link to are very informative, but they don't support the claim that al-Qaeda ever specifically wanted 20 hijackers, and they don't support the claim that "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". (Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy.}
This isn't anything personal. You obviously know your stuff. But that one paragraph states as fact things that are speculation.
Can we put this to an opinion poll?
Quadell 14:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have begun to feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

Then stop doing it. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That entire "Recent Statements and Revelations" passage reports "the things that were said to be revealed in [the] interrogations of Khalid and Moussaoui " and from "an exclusive interview with al Jazeera journalist Yosro Fauda in September 2002", to quote from that passage. That was the whole point of that entire passage - to say what these revelations were, rather than to list as Gospel fact. They may not be true, maybe there are inded things missing in what but that is not what the passage says!! If you have followup revelations, or proof that disproves these statements, then I am sure that you will let me know what they are and their sources.

It was alleged. I'd prefer the article say it was alleged, rather than state an allegation as fact.

You seem constantly intent on changing what was said on those occasions, all based on one newstory, one source that has since been superseded. Where does your allegation of "speculation" come into it? Are you trying to say that these things were not said in the al-Jazeera interview or during the interrogation of Khalid and Ramzi???

No, they were said. But that doesn't make them true. Bin Laden also said he wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack. That doesn't make it true.
And this isn't my source vs. your source. The FBI maintains to this day that although Moussaoui knew some of the 9/11 hijackers, and although he was an al-Qaeda member, that he was not involved in the attacks. No one disputes that this is the FBI's position.

I am also at a loss as to your logic on one matter. You agree that Ramzi Binalshibh was supposed to be the 20th hijacker.

No, Binalshibh was supposed to be the 4th pilot. This was before the number of hijackers was decided. There was no attempt to have a 20th hijacker.

The paragraph you are so intent on changing says that the final list consisted of 19 hijackers. Yet you keep saying that this is wrong and that there was no intention to have 20 hijackers!

There are no sources that claim an intention to have 20 hijackers specifically.

You have, I presume, now changed your mind about Moussaoui's links to the Sep 11 terrorists.

This isn't about me. It's about the facts. Moussaoui was linked, in that he knew some of them. He did not, it seems, know about the 9/11 plot specifically. I'm not objecting to Moussaoui being mentioned; I'm objecting to the claim that he was considered for the "role of 20th hijacker", a role that never existed.

However, I see no practical difference between "Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy." and "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". The idea of his getting involved in followup attacks was news to me - you have at least enlightened me to that - but my sentence allows more leeway.

If there wasn't a role of 20th hijacker, then he couldn't have been considered.

Have a quickpoll? Well, that would be a last resort for me. In view of what I've written above, how necessary is it?

Arno 09:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I believe that paragraph in question is substantially inaccurate. But this is getting entirely too personal for my tastes. If other people think that paragraph could be improved or replaced, I'll leave it to someone else to bring up. I'm tired of arguing. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Is it appropriate to list what crimes these would have been had the parties committing them been states? They are clearly not states, and I don't think other articles about crimes have equivalent passages saying what kind of war crimes they would have been if the culprets had been parties to the Geneva Conventions? Appreciating the seriousness of the attack, but it does seem pretty irrelevant. Am I way off base here? Mark Richards 21:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The list is irrelevant. I suggest we remove that section and (if we feel like something is necessary) give actual legal status of the acts - American and international laws and treaties covering terrorist acts (as of September 2001).Paranoid 16:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Leave the section. It is relevant to the context and understanding of the Acts, and, if it is ever determined that the killers were acting in any way in concert or complicity with any signatory state actor (even *cough* Saudi Arabia), they would be actionable war crimes. Why would you want to remove such incredible potential war crimes in the murder of 3,000 civilians at a time we're alleging every out-of-line act is a "war crime"? -- Cecropia | Talk 17:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Update--they are war crimes. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Cecropia, leave the section. It is apparently accurate and very relevant because it points toward an alternative route that could have been taken to deal with this crime against humanity, and that the US also have an interest in maintaining a framework of international law. (as an aside Cecropia, what are you referring to by "every out-of-line act" ?) - pir 19:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I mean detainee maltreatment, though not specifically Abu Graib, which may well be individual war crimes. I am talking about a matter of scope and proportion, rather than the technical meaning of the phrase "war crime," which is actually very broad. Technically, Adolf Eichmann did not commit war crimes when he harmed German Jewish civilians, yet a prison guard who makes a POW do forced labor is. Just the nature of the thing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
They aren't war crimes.
I realize this has been discussed before, but I disagree with classifying the September 11 attacks as war crimes. In the earlier discussion, at least a mention was made of limiting the statement.
You can't have war crimes without war. The citation used in the article is too general to be applicable. If the war crimes classification has merit, you should be able to find something specific, ideally, to the attacks themselves.
Here is information from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"What does humanitarian law say about terrorism?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/256CFA98B1DCE442C1256CF6002D63F0

"Terrorist acts may occur during armed conflicts or in time of peace. As international humanitarian law applies only in situations of armed conflict, it does not regulate terrorist acts committed in peacetime."
"When is a war not a war?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/3C2914F52152E565C1256E60005C84C0

"What is the proper role of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) in the 'war on terror'? Humanitarian law applies in and to armed conflict. Thus, terrorism, and by necessary implication, counter-terrorism, are subject to humanitarian law when, and only when, those activities rise to the level of armed conflict. Otherwise, the standard bodies of domestic and international criminal and human rights laws will apply.
...
"Humanitarian law recognizes two categories of armed conflict - international and non-international. Generally, when a State resorts to force against another State (for example, when the "war on terror" involves such use of force, as in the recent U.S. and allied invasion of Afghanistan) the international law of international armed conflict applies. When the "war on terror" amounts to the use of armed force within a State, between that State and a rebel group, or between rebel groups within the State, the situation may amount to non-international armed conflict a) if hostilities rise to a certain level and/or are protracted beyond what is known as mere internal disturbances or sporadic riots, b) if parties can be defined and identified, c) if the territorial bounds of the conflict can be identified and defined, and d) if the beginning and end of the conflict can be defined and identified. Absent these defining characteristics of either international or non-international armed conflict, humanitarian law is not applicable."

Maurreen 07:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WTC 7

I removed the following: " In addition, Larry Silvertstein, who held a seven-week-old lease on One and Two World Trade Center, claimed in an interview that he, jointly with the New York Fire Department, made the decision to deliberately demolish Seven World Trade Center, also known as the Solomon Building, which he also owned, and which was then the headquarters of the crisis and disaster command center for the mayor of New York City."

While the popular suject of alternate theories concerning 9-11, this is not an accepted fact. For one, the FEMA report contradicts it. At the very least it cannot go in the article at the top as a fact. Perhaps later in a deeper discussion of both sides. Rmhermen 04:16, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."[44]

"This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower."[45]

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, stood to gain $500 million, and the federal government gave the order to destroy WTC7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 (InfoWars article). Silverstein's revelation is on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' (MP3 audio file) and a cleanup program for building 6 (MP3 audio file)."[46][47][48]

"Check out this RealVideo clip from the PBS documentary, "America Rebuilds." In it, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder on the World Trade Center complex in Manahattan, admits that WTC 7 was "pulled," that is, intentionally demolished:"[49]("UPDATE: Higher-res mpg on another server"[50])

"You can hear Silverstein say this by downloading VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3 - HERE*."[51]

"In addition, we received communications from Mr. Jeremy Baker expressing concern that WTC 7 was in fact purposely demolished by its owner Larry Silverstein at 5:20 p.m. on 911. As evidence, Mr. Baker provides a PBS documentary that was aired on September 2002 titled "America Rebuilds". In the documentary Larry Silverstein is heard saying, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.""[52]

"Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?"[53]

I'm curious. What makes you say that it's not an established fact? FEMA disagrees? Larry Silverstein said he demolished his own building. If FEMA disagrees perhaps they can explain why Larry Silverstein lied as well. Is Larry Silverstein a liar? Is that your contention? That the FEMA investigation overrules Larry Silverstein's recollections from that day? Energybone 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"It is now known that this fire was fuelled by 28,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored underneath the building. Ironically, this fuel was intended to power the emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."[54]

"The dispute focused on the Seven World Trade Center site investigation, where above-ground diesel tanks were considered a possible source of the raging fire that destroyed the building. The tanks were installed four years ago, over the city Fire Department's objections, to provide emergency power to former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's doomed emergency command center on the 23rd floor."[55]

"The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include[56]:

  • bullet and bomb resistant windows
  • an independent secure air and water supply
  • the ability to withstand winds of 160 MPH"

"These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor."[57][58]

Are you still unwilling to accept the facts? Energybone 05:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to say who says who. That way, we can decide who is telling the truth for ourselves. :) WhisperToMe 05:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy."[59]

"Larry Silverstein purchased a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease of the World Trade Center in July 2001, along with the above mentioned partner Westfield America for the shopping parts. Silverstein took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by terrorist attacks."[60]

"Silverstein, who took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by a terrorist attack, said a memorial at the site to the victims of the attack "is necessary and totally appropriate.”"[61]

"The conditional settlement ends a two-year dispute between the companies and allows site reconstruction to proceed without lengthy delays. GMAC lent $563 million to the part-owner of the World Trade Center seven weeks before the terrorist attacks destroyed New York's twin towers."[62]

"Late last year, General Motors Corp.'s giant lending arm, GMAC settled a lawsuit it filed against Silverstein and the site's owner, seeking repayment of the $563 million it lent to the World Trade Center's owners just seven weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."[63]

There certainly seems to be a broad and deep coalition of people who concertedly perpetrate this hoax, because these "unaccepted facts" have been reported again, and again, and now yet again here, again and again and again. How much proof is required to get facts into an entry? At what point do they cease being facts and become UNDENIABLE FACTS? Energybone 06:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If a FEMA report conflicts, and that's a United States governmental agency we are talking about here, we HAVE to do a X said this, Y said this scenario. WhisperToMe 06:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with citing the FEMA report that conflicts with Larry Silverstein's own statements, particularly his admission that he had the building demolished. Since he is the one who ordered the demolition, I think it's safe to say he's a more reliable source than the FEMA-come-latelies who were trying to put the pieces back together after Larry Silverstein orders those pieces taken apart. It's probably still in there somewhere, that entry is enormous and needs a good housecleaning. There's no reason for it to be that huge. Energybone 06:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The only fact cited in this lengthy collection of blog quotes etc. is that they say a PBS documentary says that Silverstone said that he let WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally. So, in the article it could be stated that "numerous web sites and blogs cite a PBS documentary called "America rebuild" in which WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstone is said to state that he let the WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally" (or something similar). Everything else wouldn't be fact, but opinion-presented-as-fact accoding to our NPOV policy. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 18:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay you need to back up and check your facts. The documentary appeared on PBS, and Larry Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE AS YOU ERRONEOUSLY STATE) plainly stated that he had the building demolished. If you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion then you need to take some remedial English lessons. Energybone 18:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I would rather link to the PBS documentary itself. WhisperToMe 18:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Tillwe, why do you and Rheanurmanurmnherm keep taking out these facts and replacing them with the erroneous statement that the intentional demolition of Seven World Trade Center is a THEORY? It's clearly NOT a theory, it's an easily verifiable fact, and a fact Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE) admits publically, as if he's some sort of hero for demolishing the building. Energybone 18:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Because if the FEMA report is contradictory to Silverstein's claims, then the claims should be called a "claim". They can be mentioned, yes, but only as what Silverstein says. WhisperToMe 21:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to anywhere were Silverstein claims he had the building "demolished". Any quote from Silverstein saying "demolished"? Anywhere? Rmhermen 21:04, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

No web links maintained by PBS do, but this video may: http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/ - It is temporairly out of stock. WhisperToMe 21:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 8

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at:

Naming of 7WTC

The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters. 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc. If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do. In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center." Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --Golbez 04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI

Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.

If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.

But MEMRI? Come on, people.

--68.110.71.34 18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. WhisperToMe 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at [64]. HTH, KeithTyler


If You Were President on 9/11?

Something I wonder about is how other, ordinary Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11? Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit. But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11. My response would have been Biblical in proportions. It would have been the stuff of legends. Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now. Some nations would probably only be a memory. And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions. That's how mad I was on September 11th. It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position. You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes. What would you have done?

JesseG 02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. WhisperToMe 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. DJ Clayworth 15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric Article Pieces

I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.

Examples:

Earlier revelations
... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S. & the majority of the U.N. at this time.

Effects
...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq & the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners.

Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US & it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US & Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act. Duemellon

I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". WhisperToMe 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --Duemellon 12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV. I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment. Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. Yitzhak 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emotional & perspective response

I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event & perspectives at the time.

I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.

Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.

Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.

A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).

I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.

I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? Miss Puffskein 04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article's last paragraph

Hi,

The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.

I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion & perspective on the events & their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --Duemellon 12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) Quadell (talk) 12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --Duemellon 14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - Tεxτurε 18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning something) while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis were Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the "The Israelis done it!" variety. Quadell (talk) 19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
There is that September 11 rumours and misinformation page that would have some of the conspiracy theories that you have referred to. Arno 06:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the link to 911truth.org

Their onsite Editorial policy and disclaimer says enough, if you ask me:

"We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best. - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur. - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion. - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."

It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe 17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with WhisperToMe, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)

For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And please sign comments with four tildes! WhisperToMe 23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. Quadell (talk) 02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some OverGeneralization

This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.

While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim.
--KeithTyler 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). Rmhermen 04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe

WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --Golbez 06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... WhisperToMe 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nope, I didn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=5536845&oldid=5536701

Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. WhisperToMe 23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --Golbez 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida

195.7.55.146, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. Quadell (talk) 16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not - 195.7.55.146

august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures

What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for the august 6th briefing can be found here. Bontenbal 08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Learning from the September 11 Attacks By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001 With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.

President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).

President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."

But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.

In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.

In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.

But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.


Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)

--- Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. WhisperToMe 21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War

User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. WhisperToMe 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period. Therefore its an important piece of information which puts the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--Xed 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. WhisperToMe 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Loweeel 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The war was going on at the same time--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. WhisperToMe 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds nothing to the article. - Tεxτurε 22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. WhisperToMe 22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --Cantus 23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into every entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another... Wetman 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added him to the RFC >.< WhisperToMe 23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 9

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Celebrating 9/11

Is there a reliable, objective source to substantiate this broad, inflammatory statement?

"In numerous cities of the Islamic world, in 2002, 2003 and again in 2004, the anniversary of the attacks, September 11, has been celebrated with crowded streets filled with dancing chanting men and celebratory gunfire, documented at al-Jazeera and very briefly in the Western media."

  • Links mentioning "celebration" of 911 attacks: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968195/posts], [65], [66], [67]. The particular reference I found was to a celebration in London on Sep 11 2004 [68], which contains: The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 [Suicide Attackers]," but had cancelled it at the last minute. I couldn't find anything mentioning dancing in the streets, however. Matt Stan 20:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize that London was considered part of the Islamic world already. Perhaps the article should name the celebrants as members of "the UK extremist group al-Muhajiroun" rather than inflaming the gentle reader with the image of barbarian hordes dancing all over the Islamic world in celebration of 9/11's carnage. Perhaps a quote from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be appropriate here if Wikipedia would like to record the reactions to 9/11 from Christian leaders.

God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson. "Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population." Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes." Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

Ramzi Binalshibh

Ramzi Binalshibh's name is misspelled "Binalsibh" in two places on the page.

No it's not "misspelled" - It is inconsistent. ;) WhisperToMe 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations

The allegations that "all member of the bin Laden family" and other Saudis were ferried out of the USA during the three day flight ban following 9/11 are inaccurate.

"Civilian air travel across the United States was—for the first time ever—suspended almost totally for three days, with numerous locations and events affected by closures, postponements, cancellations, and evacuations. However, according to the controversial political commentator Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, there was during this time an airlift to Saudi Arabia of all members of the bin Laden family in the USA at the time, leading to claims that potentiallly useful witnesses had been allowed by the US government to escape investigation"

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm But the key point is that the Saudis mentioned in these accounts were not flown out of the country — they were assembled at locations from which they could be conveniently flown out of the country once regular airline travel resumed. ........ No news account had a flight of Saudis leaving the U.S. until after the resumption of normal air traffic. The earliest date posited for a flight bearing bin Laden family members leaving the U.S. was September 14, a date by which the resumption of air travel had already begun:

  • OK, but the point that should be made is that the Bin Ladens were "rescued" by the US authorities and allowed to go to Saudi Arabia at the request of a high ranking Saudi official, rather than being treated as potential witnesses in a regular murder enquiry. It is usual, I understand, in a murder enquiry, for potential witnesses to be asked to remain available to police in case they have information that might be useful, such as, in this case, the location of their relative. Whether they flew straight to Saudi Arabia or whether they were flown first to some assembly point while everyone else in the US was grounded is perhaps useful to know, but it doesn't detract from the main point being made here. Matt Stan 20:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The FBI had an opportunity to question the Saudis before they left the country and apparently did not consider them witnesses or otherwise deserving of detention.

War Crimes, Part 3

I deleted the section on war crimes. If anyone disagrees with me, I hope you will discuss it and provide some authority specifically stating that the attacks were a war crime. Also see the material in my previous comments, from the Red Cross.

I forgot to sign that. Maurreen 04:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations again

Moore's allegations have wide currency because of the success of his movie F-9/11 but, unfortunately, they are not entirely factually accurate according to Snopes.com, the 9/11 Commission, and journalists who have looked at the sequence carefully.

Thanks for the links. I wish there was more substance to these allegations but he's really just grasping at straws. There were no unusual flights. Moore even admits it. He hinges the accusation that one flight was flown out of Tampa a day early based on local newspaper article speculation. Very weak. The Bush-Saudi connection exists, no doubt. The rich and powerful flock together. But then where do you go with it from there? That doesn't make them responsible for 9/11. It's a sideshow. Can you tie up all those Michael Moorish insinuations in a way that works for an encyclopedia and not some conspiracy theory rant? We want wiki NPOV facts, not innuendo and fiction.Alberuni 05:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the conspiracy speculation limited to the conspiracy section of this main page. If the conspiracy needs alot of explicating, there is a wiki dedicated to just that. Conspiracies are interesting and potentially damning but unless backed up by strong facts, I believe they detract from this otherwise solid and important article. Alberuni 20:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • From: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm: In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True. Matt Stan 09:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly. Overall, it appears that all flights -- the ones gathering up Saudis domestically and the one from Boston to Jedda -- took place after the government allowed aviation to resume." [69] Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • And from the same source: Clearly bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the September 11 attacks, and this was effected with the approval and assistance of the American government. Matt Stan 09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What are you suggesting? That bin Laden family members are somehow guilty by association of the crimes of Osama bin laden? The FBI knew who was flying, they could have questioned or arrested anyone on any flight leaving the USA, as I'm sure they would if they had even a sliver of a reason. They authorites detained more than 1200 innocent Muslims on various immigration and other pretexts in the weeks after 9/11 "just in case" they were involved in terrorism. Would you have all Saudi Arabians in the USA and all bin Laden family members arrested and held in detention because of their surnames, nationality, or religion despite the lack any evidence of criminal wrongdoing? Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I am no supporter of any conspiracy theory. The idea that the Saudis requested that their nationals should be removed from USA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, particularly when it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was a prime suspect, is not fantastic. (Moore shows an interview with the Saudi minister which attests to this.) The fact that the US acquiesced to this request, given the economic dependency that various US interests have on Saudi goodwill, is not surprising. The fact that a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave, appears to be from independent sources. What is surprising is that any wikipedian should wish to censor the fact that an Oscar-winning journalist has reported this story. I think the intrinsic interest that this story has means that it should remain prominent in this article. I fear that it is embarrassment and insecurity of position that is prompting my censors. Matt Stan 00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First of all, censorship and defense of the Bush administration are completely anathema to me. It's funny that I would even be accused of it. Please don't be paranoid. I am just trying to be objective. I agree with your basic premise that global economic dependence on Mideast oil contributes to US foreign policies of propping up repressive regimes like the Saudi government, waging wars on Iraq, building military bases in Saudi Arabia, and defending Israel (considered a bulwark against Soviet domination of the Mideast at one time); and that the al-Qaida movement and 9/11 attacks represent radical resistance to these US foreign policies. These foreign policy issues need to be explored but how do the bin Laden family flights after 9/11 explore those issues? If the White House gave special permission for bin Laden family flights after 9/11 as Michael Moore claimed, then that would presumably reflect the tip of the iceberg of US-Saudi relations. I think Michael Moore hoped that F-9/11 would cause viewers to question US foreign policies that led to 9/11 instead of believing government propaganda that "terrorists hate America because of our freedom" and i commend him for that. Unfortunately, the issues are so complex and convoluted that people can't begin to peel the layers of US foreign policy intrigue so Moore's rabble-rousing populist message ends up feeding anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria because viewers ask, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" In fact, the flights carry very little significance, if any, because apparently no special permissions were granted. The danger in using weak or forged arguments should be clear from the Dan Rather case. It can backfire against the accuser and lower the credibility of an otherwise good case. Even though close US-Saudi ties deserve scrutiny, there does not appear to have been anything particularly unusual, illegal, or covered-up in the bin Laden family flights. The bin Laden family members and other Saudis were understandably fleeing from what they expected to be an ignorant violent backlash against innocent Arabs, Muslims and people surnamed "bin Laden". You claim that the "US acquiesced to this request" but apparently there were no special privileges to fly internationally during an overall public flight ban as Michael Moore asserted in F-9/11 and no privileges were issued even domestically as Snopes.com claims but has been debunked elsewhere, as I noted above. You claim that "a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave" but there is no evidence that they would or should have been detained. The FBI had an opportunity to question them but had no reason to detain any of them. These are people who would be much more likely to become targets of al-Qaida than members of al-Qaida. The US is not dependent on goodwill of Saudi elites. The US is trying to protect the Saudi elites from bin Laden! If people are suggesting that the Saudis on those flights after 9/11 were involved in the 9/11 attacks but the White House let them leave the country, then I suggest the issue be explored under Conspiracy Theories. I don't think it should clutter the documentation of Effects of the Attacks/Grounding of Flights. All of above IMHO. Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If a relative of yours were suspected of murder, would you not think it reasonable that the police might say to you "Hang about, mate. You might have some information that will help us catch the suspect"? Or would you expect them to say, "Gosh, there's something else going on here. I'm not going to use a weak of forged argument to detain you. You'd better get out of the country fast. And never mind if you have information that might help us catch our suspect. We'll do without that because there's something else going on here!. Matt Stan 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you think that bin Laden family members were admitted to the USA, allowed todonate money to Harvard University, own property and invest in US businesses without the FBI knowing that they were related to a man who was already the world's most wanted terrorist prior to September 11, 2001? Do you think the bin Laden family members were not already questioned, investigated and probably under surveillance by the FBI/CIA? You think they had new information about Osama's whereabouts but were spirited out of the USA by the Bush administration because...............? Please elaborate. What does Michael Moore think? There is a conspiracy wiki for the discussion. Alberuni 14:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The something else going on is that the US is evidently treating some people as above the law. Why that is can plausibly be explained by the level of Saudi investment, including that of the Bin Laden family itself, in the US. There's no conspiracy there. The only conspiracy is that there are some who would like to cover this story up because they find it embarrassing and, no doubt, because, as Alberuni has written, people might say, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" Surely that IS the point. We can explain: those rich Saudis are allowed to fly BECAUSE they are rich and powerful. Never mind that they just might be able to give us information that just might help us catch our suspect (ostensibly the most wanted man in the world), as would be the case in other murder enquiries - yes, I've been watching Columbo. There is something indecent about letting the Saudis fly away just like that, whichever way you look at it, and it is surely a relevant part of the story of 9/11. I deem those who revert the facts that I put into the main article to be the conspirators here. If my relative were suspected of murder and I said, "Sorry mate, I'm pissing off to Arabia and I'm not coming back", I think the police might get an order to take away my passport, pending future enquiries. But if I'm called Bin Laden then it's, "Yes, of course, sir. Have a nice trip!" Matt Stan 19:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How were they "treated above the law"? They were allowed to fly, like everyone else, AFTER the ban on charter flights was lifted 3 days after 9/11. [70] Michael Moore was mistaken about this point. (Please excuse me for disputing the allegations of an Oscar-winning movie director). If you believe innocent people should be harassed just because they are Saudi, Muslim, or members of the bin Laden family - even though they are upstanding community members, 100% innocent of any crimes and there is no reason to suspect otherwise - well, then you should understand why they would want to leave the country in a hurry. See Balbir Singh Sodhi for details. If one of your relatives commits murder and you are not involved in any way, the police will not (should not) take away your passport or deny you your basic rights. Why should they? You haven't committed a crime. Out of curiousity, what is your opinion about locking up innocent Japanese-Americans at Manzanar during WWII? Alberuni 21:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The 9/11 commission reported that it was Richard Clarke (yes, the same Richard Clarke who was so critical of Bush) who was the highest ranking official to sign off on allowing the bin Laden family members to leave. They also found there was no higher political pressure to do so, as reported by the press, including The Washington Post [71].

www.911truth.org

There have been alot of annoying anonymous reverts regarding this link.

  • 911Truth.org is a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup.
  • 911Truth.org is a website that states that there is a coverup of the true cause of 9/11 by the U.S. Government.

It is neutral to describe the website that states that there is a U.S. government coverup of the true cause of 9/11. It is not neutral to refer to a campaign to educate the public about "the Sept. 11th coverup." The factual basis of a Bush administration cover-up is not a neutral fact. (I wish it was; I'd like to hear it). It is an opinion. Why is this such a difficult concept? Wikipedia shouldn't take a position on whether or not there is a U.S. government cover-up. Wikipedia can report facts related to the purported cover-up. Let's report facts and stop the silly revert war over the description of this link. Alberuni 21:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"World Trade Center attacks"

Why is this page being moved now? I don't recall a poll to move this back... WhisperToMe 01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a problem? It looks like a redirect from WTC attacks with no change in content here. Alberuni 01:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It still is a problem because it ruins all of the redirects. If one wants to change the title of a popular article, he or she should ask around first. WhisperToMe 01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As for the title itself, September 11 consisted of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania incidents. WhisperToMe 01:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


'September 11, 2001' and '7 December 1941'

The article seems to jump from the MM/DD/YY format to the DD/MM/YY format, and mostly uses the DD/MM format (eg 11 September). Also the very first sentence combines formats: The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001.

Is this just inconsistency (which should be changed to a US format of MM/DD/YY and MM/DD throughout)? Or is there some underlying purpose to it that I don't understand?

Just thought I'd ask before changing anything. Jongarrettuk 20:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's your fault.
...
Oh, you probably want an explanation. :) In your settings, you must have it set to display dates in the European format, "DD Month YYYY". But that only works for linked dates, which is why almost every date on the pedia is wikified. However, the article name in the lede is not, and should not (since it would then differ from the article title). That's why. --Golbez 21:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 10

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Major restructuring

I have put through some major restructuing. The changes put through are as follows:

Wording added for an international audience. Where I could think of a word or spelling used throughout the English-speaking world to replace a US English term, I have done so. Where I couldn’t think of one to use without disturbing the flow of the article, I have not done so.

Comments about 7 WTC that are already reflected in the 7 WTC article redacted. - removed ref to 7WTC from overview.

A lot of stuff about the name has been moved to Significance of '9/11'

A lot of stuff on responsibility has been merged with Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks

Lead section too long - some material removed and put into overview. Reordering of information and redaction of repeated information.

'Investigations' section removed as it didn’t seem to go anywhere. It said there were investigations and there was a report, but didn’t mention its findings.

Prediction section removed. Maybe there is a place to discuss warnings that the U.S. Government and others had before 9/11, the section that I removed doesn't really achieve this.

Conspiracy theory information moved to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Some links removed as the list seemed too long.

There was also an intention to shorten the article to below 32kbs. I haven’t played around with the piccis, but there seem to be too many and to crop up in odd places now. jguk 19:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good trim. Maurreen 23:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hijackers

Anyone of you editors in charge of this site, take note-

I severely object to the page September 11, 2001 attacks being as it is in its present form. Have you all failed to recognise to see that many of the supposed Arab-Muslim hijackers are very well alive and were not involved in such attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Here is a list of these 'supposed hijackers' and their stata. Khalid Al-Mihdhar Salem Al-Hazmi - ALIVE - Works at petrochemical plant in Yanbou, Saudi Arabia. "Mr Al-Hazmi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbo after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon." Telegraph UK - 9/23/01 Waleed M. Al-Shehri - ALIVE - A pilot with Saudi Airlines, studying in Morrocco.A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline. On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco. His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr. Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. Daily Trust, 24th September 2001 Wail M. Al-Shehri - ALIVE A man by the same name is a pilot, whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. "I personally talked to both father and son today," said Gaafar Allagany, head of the Saudi Embassy's information center. LA Times 9/21/01 Abdulaziz Al-Omari - ALIVE - Two men, same name, BOTH in Saudi Arabia. Abdulaziz Al-Omari Number 1 Al-Omari lives with his wife and four children in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media. BBC 23rd September 2001 Omari Number 2 a) "A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdulaziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Alomari says he informed police of the theft." ABCNews b) "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." Telegraph UK - 9/23/01 Marwan Al-Shehhi - ALIVE in Morrocco Said Al-Ghamdi - ALIVE - Student 'Airbus 320' pilot in Tunisia. a) "I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks." Telegraph UK - 9/23/01 b) "Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Said Al-Ghamdi." BBC 9/23/01 c) "Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months." Wal Fadjri, 21st September 2001 Ahmed Al-Nami - ALIVE - An administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, in Riyadh. "I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida. " Telegraph UK, 23rd September 2001

Furthermore, anyone who believes that although a whole Boeing 757 dematerialised in the attacks yet a passport survived and was found in the rubble has to be crazy. Only a real 'conspiracy nut' could conjure up or believe such things. No investigations were made into the Israeli spies caught celebrating on a NY rooftop and acted suspisciously when pulled over by police, instead they were sent straight back to Israel. Not 1 'al-qa'ida' member has been caught in the USA despite the claim made that there were 500 operatives/sleepers in the USA. Coincidentally, more than 500 Israeli spies were caught since. As well to believe that a plane managed to hit the pentagon, driven by an amateur, and somehow left no visible point of impact directly after the attacks (the images are there, search for them) and left an area of damage smaller than the complete span of the plane, is as well absurd.

Keep looking and you'll see what really happened.

(anon post)

Or maybe, these men are just guys with the same name.

I bet if one of the hijackers was named "John Smith", and then you saw a "John Smith" on the street, you would go "Ooh! Ooh! See, see, Itolju he's not a hijacker the government islying!" (Never mind that there are many John Smiths out there) - Also, the hijackers may have stolen the identities of other people. I have no idea what that BBC guy was smoking when he made that title. WhisperToMe 04:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I am not sure about the others, but at least one of them has their own page and has a heading listed along the lines of "Mistaken Identity". As for the Israeli theory, it is listed under "Responsibility for September 11, 2001 attacks". TheProject 04:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Taking for a second your theory to be correct... what do you posit actually happened? What motive is there to blow up the pentagon and who do you think did it? --kizzle 06:06, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't a theory, that was someone blowing holes in a theory. Then you ask "what do you posit actually happened?" you are ignoring facts in pursuit of a theory... Let's make up a theory together... that would still be a theory. The point is we don't know, have not been allowed to pursue evidence. The entire building was carted away and disposed of pretty quickly and efficiently. That's enough to make me suspicious. Wasn't it a crime scene? Why was there less forensic detectivery done on the WTC than it seemed to merit? The oklahoma federal building was also buried, under the watchful eye of Wackenhut guards. Who do you think killed Archduke Ferdinand and why? Why were the ships left in Pearl Harbor, even though an admiral advised that it was foolhardy? When was the earliest that the US knew of plans for Pearl Harbor? Why did the US provoke/stage the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Why did the US train Osama binLaden and all those other terrorists? It doesn't matter who we or anyone believes did it or why, the point is we don't know al-Quaeda or any of the named persons in the article did it. It's just as believable that any of a number of other equally well-supported theories are correct. Just because american TV says it was al-Quaeda hijackers doesn't mean it's true. And why was the building 7 info moved to another article? Was it not actually attacked? Because it was a controlled detonation of pre-placed explosive charges? Why did 40-year-plus veteran firefighters say they heard bombs going off inside the building? Do they just not know the difference betweeen a fire and an explosive charge? after 40 years of being a fire proffessional? Why was the insurance company unable to cover the claim on the building, and why did the govt. cover their loss? Why were lies told about how the building was constructed, when there are films available showing the actual construction available to see? How gullible is the American public?Pedant 15:33, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
but since you asked: Maybe someone wanted an excuse to remove more Vested Rights from the citizens of the United States? I know that the US govt. and some of it's agencies have created phony terrorist attacks before, but in those cases,they later admitted that they were training exercises. AFTER they were reported as terrorist attacks by the news. And after someone proved they were hoax attacks.
Is a training exercise what they call it when there is incontrovertible proof, and call it a terrorist attack when there isn't any proof? Why did the 'airliner' that hit the pentagon leave no wreckage or burn marks on the lawn? Why did it make a hole the size of a missile instead of the size of a plane? Why did eyewitenesses say it was a missile? Why are there no windows on any of the planes?
Sure, by my definition whoever did the 9/11 attacks were terrorists. But who did it is still an open question, or else why is there still an investigation? Who was attacked? The United States? The U.S, government? The citizens of the U.S.? Some particular person or group of people in the WTC? the World Trade Organization? American people's rights? I don't claim to know the answers, but there are questions, and those questions have not been satisfactorily answered.

Jumpers

It's hard to find good info on the jumpers. Here is an informative site. Approxomately 200 people jumped. Each fall lasted about ten seconds. It's not a professional-enough site to be linked from the page, but I thought some of you might find it interesting. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:15, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fair warning that the site Quadell links to also has some pretty graphic hostage-beheading images if you click around (not on the article he links to). I went to the main page and got something I wasn't looking for. Graft 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. Not safe for work. Or weak stomachs. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 03:43, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

please change the link to chinese

the link is w:zh:九一一袭击事件,both the zh-ch and z-tw,please use this and delete the zh-tw and zh-cn link.---Vipuser 06:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why on earth was the ZH-TW removed in the first place? WhisperToMe 22:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bin Laden's Involvement

In the recent tape Bin Laden claims somewhat intimate involvement.

"We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on." - Osama bin Laden

Isn't there incontrovertible proof tha Osama is a liar? Isn't there strong evidence that he and his family have intimate economic connections to the Bush family? Look, CNN is covering up the election fraud, actively changing data to make it fit, do you expect me to believe either CNN or Osama? Conspiracy Theory has become a pejorative phrase since the assassination of JFK, now all one has to do is say conspiracy theory, and everyone just lays down and shuts up... at least that's what we are supposed to do. Look into some of what has classicly been labelled 'conspiracy theory' and see what you really think... how many of those turned out to be true?Pedant

ARCHIVE NUMERO 11

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

International Reaction

I was just curious if anyone could provide a list of nations that didn't condemn the 9-11 attacks, those that did, and those countries that really gave no opinion.

As far as I recall, every country (officially) condemned the attacks with the exception of Iraq. (This doesn't imply that Iraq was actively involved.) -- FP 06:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

War Games

I've attempted numerous times to add references to the war games that were taking place on September 11th, however my material has been repeatedly deleted. I realize this subject is highly controversial but the existence of these training exercises has been confirmed; and I have gone out of my way to thoroughly cite my sources. Therefore I am confused as to why my material has been removed with no explanation. Are the war games being disputed? Does somebody consider them irrelevant? I would be very interested in discussing this topic, so please provide an explanation for any further edits. --Ghost of Jefferson

The war games may have happened. Also, my friend went shopping. Should we put that in the article, as well? Why do you consider these war games to be relevant? Because they featured a plane crashing into a building? So what? Graft 01:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The 9/11 commission investigated Vigilant Guardian. They concluded that it hadn't caused a problem but, nonetheless, they did see it as relevant. More generally, the failure to prevent the attack is relevant. Whether or not this is the proper article to do it, I think an article on why it wasn't stopped would be of use. Crosbie Smith 16:34, 23 March 2005 (GMT)

What do you mean by "may have" happened? See Execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks and check the sources for yourself.

The war games are relevant because they had an affect on the military's response to the attacks. NORAD's already limited amount of fighters were participating in a bi-national live-fly exercise that pulled Air Force resources away from NEADS and towards Alaska and the North Pole. False blips had been injected onto FAA and military radar screens. A nuclear strike/retaliation was being simulated and planes were sitting on the ground armed with nuclear weapons. The NRO and the CIA were simulating a plane crashing into their headquarters. Military and FAA officials originally considered the hijackings to be part of the games and acting CJCS Richard Myers reported Vigilant Warrior as conflicting with fighter response. And then there are the exercises that have yet to be investigated, such as Apollo Guardian and Crown Vigilance.

Details of the war games remain blurry and classified, therefore any further knowledge regarding the exercises must be acquired through public interest and investigation; and in my opinion Wikipedia is an ideal tool for spreading information and inspiring further study. The war games are certainly more relevant than many of the topics included on this page, and, unlike most of the subjects, which are just reproductions from the 9/11 Commission's report, the war games have yet to be thoroughly investigated or reported on. For these reasons, I insist that all information regarding the military exercises being conducted on 9/11 be kept in tact and available to all Wikipedia users. --Ghost of Jefferson

"Terrorist", "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"

I just found this interesting definition of terrorism on the website of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [72] It's called the "Academic Consensus Definition":

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). Slim 01:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I would say that it is correct to call them Terrorists, but it is also correct to call them "Freedom fighters", what I don't think is correct is to refer to them as one, without also referring to them as the other. Hope this clarifies things! --Rebroad 15:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist in this instance is describing the attacks, which were unquestionably, methodologically, an act of terrorism. "Freedom fighter" is a POV label for the attackers themselves. One is factual, and the other is a point of view, and in any case not appropriate where you inserted it because it does not modify "people", it modifies "action". Graft 16:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think most people agree that both Terrorist and Freedom fighters are the same thing, but the phrases are opposing POV. They both have a cause, and the innocent people that die are victims as well as "collateral damage". Every act of harm can be viewed in this way. Every bomb. Every cause. It just requires you to look at it from a different perspective. For some people that can be quite hard to do. --Rebroad 19:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I’d like to suggest that we move on from the “terrorist” debate. The issue already had a lot of attention here. The consensus was that a sitewide policy is desired, and that this article would observe a truce in the meantime.

If using or not using “terrorist” and similar or related words is important to you, please discuss it at the policy development page. That page has had no discussion since November 21.

If a policy is developed, I expect this article will conform. Otherwise, please respect the current truce. Maurreen 17:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about observing a truce on the word "terrorism." If a site-wide policy is adapted, then fine, but it hasn't been yet, so there's no way any editor can be asked not to insert that word. Of course, others can remove it. But I think the point must be that editors are free to use the word, so long as it's not used in a way that's widely off mark. I agree with Graft here, that calling September 11 a terrorist act modifies the act, not necessarily the actors. Slim 06:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, is that what the "truce" means? Sorry, I just read the notice for a second time, and now I'm not sure what the phrase "there is a truce on those words" means. Could we have a definition of "truce" regarding the definitions we're arguing over? :-) Slim 10:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, please stop the vandalism of this article. You inserted this morning that it was a "terrorist/freedom fighter" attack. This article is returned as the first item on a Google search for "September 11, 2001 attacks": see [73] You make Wikipedia look stupid with edits like that. I could understand the strong feelings if this was some kind of borderline incident, but it was an anonymous attack intended to kill thousands of non-combatants (using other civilians are weapons!) in order to spread fear throughout America and many other parts of the world. It was the Platonic form of terrorism. Slim 13:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • On the contrary. I think you make Wikipedia look biased by your inclusion of the word "terrorist". --Rebroad 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, why do you say it was "anonymous" please? --Rebroad 14:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  1. I've just noticed that the archives of the talk pages, of which there are ten, only the first, oldest archive includes the word terrorist, so based upon the article name itself, it was decided long ago to drop the use of the word terrorist.
  2. Reputable news mediea, that try to remain non-biases, avoid use of the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Reuters for example.
  3. The addition of the word terrorist, doesn't present the user with any addition facts. In the absense of the word, the reader can still make their own opinion of what to label them.
  4. Ask yourself this: Why is it that an overwhelming majority of the people who want to include the word "terrorist" are American? In order to get a fair vote, we need proportional, global representation on this issue.
--Rebroad 14:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find this whole business of calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" to be offensive. Calling the al-Qaida terrorists who murdered thousands of people on that day freedom fighters is disrespectful to the memory of those innocent people who died in the attacks. Calling these people freedom fighters allows the illusion to be formed that what the hijackers did wasn't really that bad. But refusing to call the terrorists anything other than terrorists sends the message that what these people did was indeed a horrible crime against humanity.
JesseG 05:21, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial site, JesseG. We must report in an NPOV manner and let the reader come to his or her conclusions. WhisperToMe 05:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) WhisperToMe 05:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


terrorist is way to POV, why not use millitant, itrs true and above suing terrist. Gabrielsimon 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WOW

I can't believe that there is debate on whether 9/11 was a terrorist attack on Wiki. This is very alarming to the future of both the Wiki project and free societies in general. If so many people can directly or indirectly sympathize with the attackers of 9/11, what does that say about truth in the world in its current state? Truly amazing. Those who disagree with, or harbor resentments towards the United States' for reasons economic or socio-political, (and there are many on Wiki) stun many of us by their inability to call a spade a spade on matters such as this. Wow. The world where these resentments get in the way of common sense and reality is truly a world sick and dying.

There is no right or wrong - black or white - up or down in the world as these folks know it. There is no truth, only unlimited options and excuses. We have lost our sails.

NPOV cannot exist, yet many here at Wiki believe it to levels that are bewildering.

10 November 2004 - Gavin Palone - signing off Wiki...for good.

Bye. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
There are debates on everything here, that's why we have more accurate informationthan a lot of places. In my opinion, we are better off without anyone who can't handle debate, and discussion in the furtherance of a quest for truth.Pedant 15:38, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

user:WhisperToMe has just pointed out to me that there is actually a debate going on as to whether September 11 was a terrorist attack. How sad! The word "terrorism" has no meaning if September 11 is to be called something else. The saddest thing is that users like Gavin Palone leave Wikipedia, when the project is in dire need of people like him. What was September 11, then? An attack by "activists," perhaps, akin to striding up to the World Trade Center with a clipboard and a loud hailer? Slim 05:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion was not whether it was a terrorist attack, but whether to describe it as such, etc. To participate in a related discussion, see Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Maurreen 05:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


What exactly defines a "terrorist" then? What criteria must be met? --kizzle 08:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

The thing that Gavin and Slim don't seem to understand is that the debates here on wiki aren't about whether the attacks were a GoodThing or a BadThing. Things can be very bad without being terrorism; murder, tortue and rape are all bad things that may or may not have anything to do with terrorism. The debate is about whether the attacks meet the definition of terrorist. Depending on the definition, you chose this can end up being a very close debate. People should not see this discussion as attacking the victims, the US or anyone else. Steven jones 12:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Mo pointed out above, the debate isn't even over whether the attacks meet the definition of terrorist (which most people would agree they do, unequivocally). The debate (as I understand it) is over whether we can legitimately call them that and still maintain NPOV. Though I advocated avoiding the 'terrorist' label, outside of Wikipedia, I (and likely others who argued similarly) feel that these attacks were horrible acts of terrorism. But Wikipedia is not my space, and it does not carry my opinion. Graft 16:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like to hear a definition of terrorism that would make September 11 something other than a terrorist attack. If someone has that definition, please post it here. September 11 fulfills all the criteria in my view: (1) There was no declaration of war; (2) there were no rules of engagement; (3) there was no claim of responsibility; (4) the targets were civilians; (5) there was no warning or time given to evacuate the area; (6) the purpose appears to have been the spread of terror among the civilian population. To call the attacks anything other than "terrorist" is an example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday". Slim 22:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Slim! Come on! This was a good argument you gave here, but since it wasn't in the debate on "terrorist", I didn't notice it until now. Why are you using 3 sections to discuss one topic?! Your distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" above seem to be one I can subscribe to, and as such I am inclined to agree that "terrorist" is more deserving than "freedom fighter" based upon the apparent lack of avoidance of "collateral damage". --Rebroad 14:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The distinction that is missed is that terrorism is generally defined as the attempt to acheive a n ideological goal through terror. The question then is was the action intended to cause a change of attitude through terror or simply to kill and damage the "infidel" infrastructure. On the flip side the action probably meets with the UN defn of genocide http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm, which is equally a stranger to the naive use of the word. Rich Farmbrough 08:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Terrorism" is the new Communism. It's the Communism of the 00's. Every generation needs a new enemy that is very broadly defined, so that people can be rallied around it. If you think it's funny that people in the 60's were told to duck under tables in case of a nuclear attack you should also find it funny that Homeland Security has told us to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, to tape over our windows in case of a biological attack. If seeing the Terror Alert level on the news does not make you think you're watching a movie with heavy references to 1984 you're not thinking.
The attacks do not meet the definition of genocide, since there is no intent to destroy an ethnic group. There is no intent to wipe out Americans, only to kill them in retaliation for attacks on Muslims - this is pretty clear. Thus, not genocide. No one in al-Qaeda has ever said anything like, "We need to remove Americans from the face of the planet" (as they've probably said about Israelis). Graft 15:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mental component "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". Yes. And one of the five physical components "(a) Killing members of the group; ". Yes. Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has made me consider some things, right from the minute I set my eyes upon the topic of it. The people who commited this attack may very well be freedom fighters, that they were fighting AGAINST freedom. When you kill a person, they loose existance and complete freedom in this world. By stating that they were fighting for freedom appears to be a giant hypocrisy. Terrorism seems to be a little flawed by the words meaning (by dictionary), however the word terrorism is forming a bigger meaning in the average internet connected person (the average person who will read this article), the meaning of the word to people is changing. Using terrorism will look biased to people like Rebroad, and using freedom fighter will look biased to others (looks like quite the loop). The term Kamakazi Attack (sp?) could just as easily be the correct term, but when it comes to correct terms it is not monolythic, I dont think use of the word terrorist is much of a problem myself. I personally would call the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse terrorism, and some other seemingly heartless people I have mentioned that too, seem to think it was a way of getting information to fight for freedom. Everybody seems to be all up in arms in this strange "us and them" attitude, how about "we" for a change. "Anybody claiming to be without bias is a fool or trying to fool you". My point is that we need to really consider things as we, and in the terms of "we" I think the word terrorist fits best because there are no other suggestions, and the term "Freedom Fighter" is contradictive and quite the hypocrisy. --Kintaro 12:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

question over what crashed into the pentagon

In response to a request to provide sources, I have included 3 URLs following the word Pentagon. Does anyone mind this? I am thinking that it might be more readable if the links in question are put in a seperate section, or under a conspiracy section if there is one. Comments please. Thanks, --Rebroad 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the link's I've added I found pretty quickly just searching Google for "pentagon crash conspiracy", so given a little more time, I could probably find some better examples that are better presented, and ideally with some references to experts involved, so that we can see how credible either scenario really is. --Rebroad 22:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a bit of reading up, and there's a fair bit of evidence either way as to whether it was or wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. I wasn't there when it happened, so I just don't know. In the absence of proof either way, should we claim it was fact if we're not sure? Please discuss. --Rebroad 22:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind also, that many would argue that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is in itself a POV, as it suggests to the reader that it is less likely to be the truth compared with the more commonly known story. If I must I could start quoting things that are now known to be true, but were once referred to as conspiracy theories! --Rebroad 23:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This school of thought, that there's "evidence either way" so everything should be given equal emphasis and equal time, is poor rationale at best, and I'd like to see people start actively resisting this dangerous trend here at Wikipedia. The evidence in one direction is spotty and rather goofy. The evidence in the other direction is nearly 100% definitive, not to mention the most reasonable according to Ockham's Razor. There's also "evidence either way" for a lot of crazy, crazy theories. But giving them high prominence in this article is not justified. Some critical thinking is in order, here. If you want to create a separate section about conspiracies where you include these links, that would be more easily justified. Graft 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
May I point out how many POVs there were in your text above. I'll insert (POV) after each one, to highlight. I'm not necessarity disagreeing with you, please bear that in mind, but I am in my honest opinion, trying to keep within the letter of Wikipedia policy. That is that POVs don't belong, and that if there are two sides to a story, then they should be told, even if it means "writing for the enemy", which I may very well be doing here. I think first and foremost, we need to make sure we show we are making an effort to be impartial. One cannot deny these other views exist, and I believe it is the responsiblilty of us all to ensure those views are aired. --Rebroad 23:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the article on Ockham's Razor. A very interesting article. So, are you saying we need to count the assumptions for either variation, and whichever requires the most should be considered the conspiracy theory? I'm up for this challenge. Where should we do it? On here? --Rebroad 23:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the record, please don't edit other people's text. It's incredibly gauche and one of the rudest things you can do on Wikipedia. Secondly, I suggest you read the NPOV article carefully. Extreme minority opinions do not merit equal time or equal prominence; this would destroy all sense of proportion and drastically misrepresent the common understanding of many subjects. For example, we wouldn't give prominent mention to discussion of the theory that the moon landings were faked in the articles on the subject. Your arguments in the hypothetical (this COULD end up being proven correct SOME DAY, like some other so-called "conspiracy theories" were vindicated) could be used to justify any number of cracked theories. Shall we give them all equal time? Not hardly. Graft 00:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Graft, apologies for editing your article. I was trying to keep things readable, and save having to quote it all, but in future, I will do this instead if that is better. I can't fault your logic, you are absolutely right in what you say above.
I think my main concern is that I worry that these days, as has recently been proven legally, the media can and does lie [74]. We must no longer take for granted what we read/see in the news. Assuming that the majority of people do take the news for granted, it follows that the majority will be believing a lie about certain things. I think the only way to safeguard against this happening, it to ensure that we try to give all views an equal prominence. Some would argue that this would confuse people, but it would also mean that people can start to think more critically about things, and start using their brains to come to their own conclusions. This, IMHO can only be a good thing. --Rebroad 01:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia does not want conspiracy theories, nor are we required to give them equal time or prominent mention (if any at all). →Raul654 23:31, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Note, however, that ANY description of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, as a conspiracy theory is any explanationof events that includes multiple people working together in secret.
Rebroad, Wikipedia works by consensus. Notice how many people have reverted your additions. Like Graft suggested above, your links might be acceptable in a conspiracy section or page. Maurreen 05:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont see motive in why they would not mention shooting the plane down, either way people would have died. However the arguments of who did the attacks and so forth is still questionable. I still think it was el queda, despite the fact of how fast things happened, how fast Dubya was given more power for instance, things like that seem planed by more then El Queda. With the amount of money dubya is getting from Clear Channel, I think this attack was his lottery ticket if anything. If it was a real conspiracy for war, rather then for just plain greed, I think different things would be happening now. --Kintaro 12:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: section for "historical comparisons"

I think a very good addition to this article would be to compare the events of September 11 and the events that followed with previous events in history. As mentioned earlier in this talk page, there was quite a good web page showing comparisons with the Reichstag fire, and I think it would be a valuable addition to this page. How civil am I, starting a discussion before going ahead and adding it to the page? --Rebroad 19:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That might be better as its own page. It could easily be long. Maurreen 21:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But with a very short summary and a link on the main page. --Rebroad 23:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be very difficult to keep NPOV, as one's views on what events are "comparable" is largely affected by your POV. Supporters of Bush and Ashcroft's policies would probably object to the Reichtag comparison, for instance. And if an Islamist compared it to D-Day (a supposedly untouchable empire is suddenly and surpisingly attacked), that would rankle even me. It might be possible to make the page useful, and more than a non-stop revert war, but it would be difficult. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Some indication of "putting it all in proper perspective" is entirely appropriate. I think Rebroad is right though. A short summary (one paragraph of only a few lines) together with a link to an article that develops it further is all that's needed here. "Comparable" to me would mean comparable in relation to other recent disasters and assaults by the United States on Afghanistan and Iraq, and to other terrorist incidents. jguk 23:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Proper perspective" is POV. I think Quadell is right in that it would be hard to make such a section or page with wide agreement on what is comparable. Maurreen 00:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who ever said Wikipedia was easy? :) Have faith, be bold. --Rebroad 01:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a difficult project that's being proposed, and I have a funny feeling 99% of the time would be spent keeping Rebroad from injecting it with his/her particular POV. We don't routinely do these kind of historical comparisons for other events; there's no great need to do it here. And I think Quadell is correct in saying that such comparisons are inherently biased. This goes way out of the domain of encyclopedic material. Graft 03:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If one can't learn from history, what would be the point of documenting it? --Rebroad 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not original research, and it sounds like this article would be riddled with exactly that. And I agree wholly with Graft's assertion that most of the time there would be wasted keeping Rebroad from infecting the article with conspiracy theories. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, however, in this instance, there are more than enough facts to fill this document without needing to resort to conspiracy theories. --Rebroad 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even if it did not qualify as original research (which IMO is arguably applicable), an article that is simply an analysis of facts (which a comparison would be) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia or even as a section within this article beyond a sentence or two. If you can link or reference a book or other source material which describes such an analysis, then you might want to include that material somehow. Your proposal however goes beyond the mere collection of facts, as such a comparison that you propose necessarily must include information above facts in the analysis of those facts, and thus spoon feeding. --kizzle 12:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I dont see motive in why they would not mention shooting the plane down, either way people would have died. However the arguments of who did the attacks and so forth is still questionable. I still think it was el queda, despite the fact of how fast things happened, how fast Dubya was given more power for instance, things like that seem planed by more then El Queda. With the amount of money dubya is getting from Clear Channel, I think this attack was his lottery ticket if anything. If it was a real conspiracy for war, rather then for just plain greed, I think different things would be happening now. --Kintaro 12:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette

My understanding is that the same boldness generally encouraged in articles is discouraged on talk pages. I believe it is usually considered bad form to change or move people's comments in a way that the writer disagrees with. Rebroad or anyone else, if you disagree with the placement of the "terrorist" notice, please state your concern and leave my writing as is, and where it is, unless you get a consensus. Maurreen 21:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification:The paragraph above applies specifically to

the notice on the word "terrorist." Maurreen 21:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include descriptions of geographical locations in the intro?

We seem to be in a bit of an edit war over whether to include descriptions of the locations of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the description. Please could a concensus be reached on this? Thanks, --Rebroad 12:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should include such descriptions as we should not assume that everyone knows where the Twin Towers were or where the Pentagon is. Many people don't. New Yorkers and Virginians are no doubt familiar with their locations - but I'd guess most people over here in the UK would not know the location of the Pentagon, for instance. It's really a case of "Think of the reader". jguk 12:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to say that they are in the United States? If people want to know the exact location of these buildings, then they need only click on the links to get a fuller description. The exact location is not IMHO relevant to this article. --Rebroad 12:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To leave out the fact that the WTC is in Manhattan (The financial capitol of the United States) and the Pentagon is in the DC area (The governmental capitol of the United States) leaves out a very important fact which allows for some insight in to the motivation of this act. Would you propose the location of the March 11 bombings be no more specific than "Europe"? -- GIR
I'm not sure we can really describe the attacks without saying where they happened. United States is too vague, and we're only talking about a few words anyway. Why not just leave them in, they're not exactly objectionable words, are they? jguk 12:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only objecting to their relevance, the words are very pretty :) --Rebroad 13:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, location details certainly doesn't detract from the article. If I was reading an article about a significant event anywhere, I would want to know where. Maurreen 16:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Rebroad, please stop the vandalism of this article. You inserted this morning that it was a "terrorist/freedom fighter" attack. This article is returned as the first item on a Google search for "September 11, 2001 attacks": see [75] You make Wikipedia look stupid with edits like that. I could understand the strong feelings if this was some kind of borderline incident, but it was an anonymous attack intended to kill thousands of non-combatants (using other civilians are weapons!) in order to spread fear throughout America and many other parts of the world. It was the Platonic form of terrorism. Slim 13:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from above)

  • On the contrary. I think you make Wikipedia look biased by your inclusion of the word "terrorist". --Rebroad 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, why do you say it was "anonymous" please? --Rebroad 14:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I wrote that the attacks were anonymous, I meant that they weren't claimed. Slim 15:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  1. I've just noticed that the archives of the talk pages, of which there are ten, only the first, oldest archive includes the word terrorist, so based upon the article name itself, it was decided long ago to drop the use of the word terrorist.
  2. Reputable news mediea, that try to remain non-biases, avoid use of the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Reuters for example.
  3. The addition of the word terrorist, doesn't present the user with any addition facts. In the absense of the word, the reader can still make their own opinion of what to label them.
  4. Ask yourself this: Why is it that an overwhelming majority of the people who want to include the word "terrorist" are American? In order to get a fair vote, we need proportional, global representation on this issue.
--Rebroad 14:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've just inserted "freedom fighter attack" again. This is vandalism and if it continues someone will report you for it.
This terrorism/freedom fighter debate is being conducted at the level teenagers talk about it, or even lower. I take your point, Rebroad, about the word "terrorist" not adding to the meaning of the overall article, but this is only because, once a person has read it, or for anyone who already knows what the 9/11 attacks were (which is everyone in the world), the addition of the word "terrorist" only confirms what they already know. But looking at that sentence in isolation: "The attacks of blah blah were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks against the blah . . . ," the word "terrorist" certainly does add information. It tells you the attacks did not take place between two warring parties with a declaration of war and rules of engagement. It tells you that civilians were almost certainly the targets. It tells you the acts were illegal, and so on. That is, the word has denotation, as well as connotation. You are arguing that it merely connotes. You are wrong. It does both.
And please don't move my text around on this page. If you want to copy something, fine, but don't move it and don't delete it. Slim 15:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Slim, nice article, although I found the connotation article easier to read and understand. So, I suppose in order to remain NPOV, the question would be: is there an alternative word to "terrorist" that only denotes and doesn't connote? --Rebroad 17:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, I've never deleted any text in a talk page, only ever moved. --Rebroad 17:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from WOW section. Rebroad, I'm copying these questions and answers because they're a bit scattered at the moment.)

I would like to hear a definition of terrorism that would make September 11 something other than a terrorist attack. If someone has that definition, please post it here. September 11 fulfills all the criteria in my view: (1) There was no declaration of war; (2) there were no rules of engagement; (3) there was no claim of responsibility; (4) the targets were civilians; (5) there was no warning or time given to evacuate the area; (6) the purpose appears to have been the spread of terror among the civilian population. To call the attacks anything other than "terrorist" is an example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday". Slim 22:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slim! Come on! This was a good argument you gave here, but since it wasn't in the debate on "terrorist", I didn't notice it until now. Why are you using 3 sections to discuss one topic?! Your distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" above seem to be one I can subscribe to, and as such I am inclined to agree that "terrorist" is more deserving than "freedom fighter" based upon the apparent lack of avoidance of "collateral damage". --Rebroad 14:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good. I'm glad you see that distinction, Rebroad. Not only did the 9/11 attacks not try to avoid collateral damage. They intended it.
The thing I liked about the United Nations "academic consensus" definition of terrorism (at the top of this page) was that it makes the point that the main target in a terrorist attack is the audience, and that the actual victims are regarded as collateral damage or "representatives" of the target audience. Each member of the audience thinks: "That could easily have been me in that building/at that bus stop/in that nightclub." And that is what spreads the terror, which is the point of the attack. Slim 15:20, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
"Terrorist" and "freedom fighter", in this instance, is not a fair dichotomy. For an excellent cinematic depiction, please see The Battle of Algiers, which sympathetically portrays the use of terrorism as a tactic within the Algerian resistance to French colonialism. That is, one can be a freedom fighter and still be a terrorist. The use of "terrorist" as an ideological label, e.g. "someone who hates freedom", is a construct of the Bush Administration (approximately). Maureen's policy debate, where once more I suggest this discussion belongs (and where Rebroad's repetition of tired arguments will be less disruptive), is over whether we can in good conscience use "terrorist" in its original, non-ideological (i.e. factual) meaning.
Also, I'd like to appeal for a little charity from Rebroad, who seems to assume that none of the rest of us have ever considered any of the points he is bringing up. This is not true; we've hashed all of these debates out many times before. There are merely other principles at work; since you've been here for less than a week, might I suggest you take a while to learn how it is that Wikipedia operates before you go around sticking your beak in things, and be a little conservative with your edits? Graft 16:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

Rebroad, I'd like to stress Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus. Notice that no one else working on this article agrees with you. Maurreen 16:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I've listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Maurreen 16:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And now I have deleted it from RfC. Maurreen 06:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mainland

Sorry if this seems trivial, but somehow mainland sounds odd to me as a way of referring to the continental United States.

Perhaps I think of "mainland" as inapplicable or ambiguous for the U.S. because I'm not certain if mainland includes Alaska.

  • Regardless, does continental United States sound better?

-- Eric 17:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alaska is certainly still continental. Only Hawaii and the Alaskan islands were attacked in World War Two, not the Alaskan mainland, so Mainland still works. Rmhermen 18:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
"Contiguous states" or "48 contiguous states" is a common alternative. A bit unwieldy, maybe. Graft 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But we mean mainland 49 non-contiguous states here. Rmhermen 19:12, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
We can mean whatever we want - we could just as well say it was the first time the East Coast was attacked since the War of 1812 and be correct. Anyway... not that critical, I think. Graft 19:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You could also say it was the first time there was an attack against the US proper since 1812 (Alaska and Hawaii were did not have statehood during WWII). →Raul654 06:03, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
They were still US territory, and thus part of the US proper. You could say that it was the first attack on one of the United States since the War of 1812 ("since 1812" ignores the duration of that War), but that would confuse people unfamiliar with the American federal system. I say we stick with mainland. Ari 05:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor nitpicking some comments above.
    • In addition to engagements with the Japanese Navy various places in the Pacific during WW II, Japan launched balloons carrying incendiaries and bombs that dropped when the balloons dropped too low ... the farthest east they got was Chicago. The USA downplayed their nuisance value in hopes that Japan would abandon that method of attack.
    • On the East Coast, by submarines on the Atlantic, Germany landed saboteur teams sent inland to blow up major infrastructure. This failed because the team included an Americanized "collaborator" who turned them into the FBI.
    • While the War of 1812 involved major attacks on the East Coast of USA by foreign powers (Britain and her allies), there was the not so little matter of the American Civil War in which the Southern States sent a major army or two into the Northern East Coast states. Gettysburg for example was a major conflict in USA history.

AlMac|(talk) 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Effects on children?

I hate to bring this up after people have put so much work in over the last few days, but is this section really necessary? The reaction of the American public in general garners barely a paragraph. Meanwhile, the less-than-significant and pretty much uninformed comments of the First Lady on how children might react gets quite a bit more. Why is it necessary to bring up "effects on children"? I don't feel this was a significant aspect of the attacks, any more so than, say, the "effects on the anti-globalization movement" or the "effects on the movie industry", etc. Thoughts? Graft 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One or 2 sentences are appropriate - no more. But the first lady of how everybody in the world feels, who made these contributions to Wikipedia (SNIyer1), will not discuss anything with anyone --JimWae 19:04, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Once again, I see no reason to include a discussion of the effects of the attacks on children specifically, since there is no discussion of evidence of resulting trauma, and the commentary of the First Lady does not seem especially relevant or well-informed. Would the author please defend its inclusion? Graft 19:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps consider moving the section to the Laura Bush article. It's more notable and relevant as an event of her time as First Lady than it is in the broad scope of the September 11th events.--Sketchee 10:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the section, I attach what it previously said below. It was started by an editor who is notorious for adding melodrama and emotive sections into articles. The first sentence is unnecessary, the attacks were disturbing to (almost) everyone - why single any one group of people out? Many schools closing early in Washington and NYC may be worth noting somewhere - but how much? Many businesses closed (not particularly surprising in southern Manhattan). Why single out schools? A short Laura Bush comment is not particularly relevant here either. Or in short - why single out children? As I say, it was added by an editor who prefers melodrama and emotion over encyclopaedic articles. jguk 22:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • At least it is better written than the garbage she will re-insert again in a short while. I has some relevance here & was on the news for a few days. It does have some relevance beyond Lauara Bush.
I like the "effects on children" section. It kinds of humanizes the article, and I also find it interesting that, as the article implies but does not state, every school child in America got such a letter. The effects on children news angle got a lot of play after 9/11. And the section is referenced, which mean readers can check out the letters for themselves. Slim 23:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I find this to be an odd debate. As far as I can see, the inclusion of a section about the effects on children does not dilute or harm the article. I also found it interesting that Laura Bush was a former school librarian. I hadn't known that. I see no harm in keeping it in.


Effects on children

The attacks were disturbing to children, particularly as the images were repeatedly replayed on television. Many schools closed early, especially those with children whose parents worked in Washington, D.C. and NYC. The following day, after consulting with many experts, the first lady, Laura Bush, herself a former school librarian, commented to parents that it was not good for children to be exposed to the numerous replays of the incidents, and advised parents to turn off their televisions. She also composed open letters which were distributed by state education officials. A "Dear Students" letter went to middle and high school students [76], while elementary school students got one saying, "Dear Children." [77]

Blood Drive

i like many others donated blood after the attacks. how come it isn't mentioned as a response?

But was it even Al-Qaida?

I'm not being facetious here, but there isn't any proof it WAS Al-Qaida who committed the attacks. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, it's just that I require evidence before I believe something someone tells me is true. I saw the "Bin Laden" video, and I can quite clearly see it's not even him. All the "evidence" that has been presented to the world that supports the Bin Laden theory is dubious at best. Nothing I've seen can't be created very easily by anyone with a computer. If this was a court of law, the prosecution would be laughed out of court. I'm not alone in this train of thought, either. Many intelligence experts around the world also know that the name "Al Qaida" was invented by the US government. Heck, even the organisation itself was funded by the CIA, but we already knew that.

Now, I'm not being insensitive. I know it was a terrorist attack, and that the guys who did it were cruel evil people. I thought Wikipedia was more about fact than just rampant, unchecked opinion.

As for this terrorist/freedom fighter thing, they are both. To us, they're terrorists. To the oppressed people they are acting for, they're freedom fighters. The 9/11 attacks WERE terrorist attacks. They were also attacks by freedom fighters on an oppressive regime. The two aren't mutually exclusive, not by a long shot. The world isn't black and white.

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, why did you insert the following? "In reality an [sic] US Fighter shot down the plane and killed all onboard." Please don't vandalize the article; it has been nominated for featured-article status, and a lot of people have clearly put a great deal of work into it. Blue 12:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The perpetrators of 9-11 were not acting on behalf of any oppressed people, in fact the oppressors were the guys who helped in the planning, etc of the attacks. Notice now in Afghanistan, in the stabilized areas women, etc are no longer oppressed. The people in the American Revolution were freedom fighters, Al-Qaeda (and yes there is proof they did it, most even admit it) on the other hand are just terrorists whose popularity in the Islamic world isn't so great.

Definitions of terrorist and their implications

Slim, I noticed you described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Well, according to you, most military action by the US army is terrorist in nature. If we go by what you say (which I agree with), then we have to label most US military action accordingly.

You can't have your cake and eat it - either killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is terrorism or it isn't. (Posted by 82.35.107.44)

Hi Anon, I'm not sure where I've described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Can you be more specific? Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean this one: "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [1] (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html) "Academic Consensus Definition":

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

The U.S. government isn't a clandestine or semi-clandestine individual, group or state actor; and it doesn't choose as direct targets of violence people who are not its main targets. Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true - the CIA is a clandestine state actor, and has been engaged in actions targetting people who are not its main targets, e.g. Nicaraguan peasants, et alia. Graft 05:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, Graft. Also, as SNIyer1 has re-inserted the "effects on children" section, I've edited it to include the links, which were not added back in. Slim 17:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)


who gets called terrorist and who gets caled defender of the faith changes depending on two factors one is who wins, and the other is whos talking, well a third might be who writes history, for example, if you look at south america, the US could be called a terrorist in what was going on down there in recent decades... not sayinfg i have an opinion, other then that.

Gabrielsimon 08:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UA93 crash time dispute

I slightly edited this page to correct a simple possible error. The article originally stated that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 A.M. local time. In a 9/11 timeline that I read, it stated that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 A.M. local time. There has been some discrepancy between the times that Flight 93 crashed. Originnally the time was 10:03 A.M. local time, but since then the military has determined that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 A.M. For more info, you may go to http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html

Hi. I reverted your edit, using the arguments provided in the 9/11 Commission Report (chapter 1, end note 168). --Plek 14:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's the note I was referring to:
168. Ibid., pp. 23–27.We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT).”Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack,” spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR,CVR,ATC,radar,and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“Re:UA Flight 93,”July 7,2004;see also Won-Young Kim,“Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001,” July 5, 2004.

I edited this page again to show that United Flight 93 crashed at 10:06:05 A.M. I will quote from the billstclair.com timeline I showed earlier:


"...Acording to the U.S. government, flight 93 crashes at 10:03. The cockpit voice recorder tape was recorded on a 30 minute reel, which means as new tape was recorded, old tape was erased. The government has let relatives listen to this tape, which runs for 31 minutes. So it sounds like the recording ends a minute before the official crash time. However, a seismic study autorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concludes the plane crashed at 10:06:05. The discrepancy is so puzzling, the Philedelphia Daily News has an article on the issue, called "Three Minute Discrepancy in Tape". It notes that leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 A.M., give or take a couple of seconds, and government officials won't explain why they say the plane crashed at 10:03."

Please stop reinserting data that has already been positively refuted. One of those "leading seismologists" your excerpt refers to is Dr. Won-Young Kim of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. He is the primary author of the Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack study (pdf). That's the same Dr. Kim who, in his email to the 9/11 Commission (referred to in the 9/11 Report end note 168), concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." The raw data in question from the report:
Kim, Won-Young & Baum,Gerald R. (2001), Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack (pg. 10), Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey
Now, if you can cite another qualified geologist that can refute Dr. Kim's claim that says this data is "not definitive", please do so. Thanks. --Plek 22:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plek, Plesase stop reverting my edits. I have to keep going back and putting it to the right time stats for United flight 93. Besides, how do you know the 9/11 commision report is right? CJS102793 19:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can prove I'm right. The US Army did a seismic study to determine when flight 93 crashed. They proved with seismic data, that flight 93 crashed at 10:06:05 (plus or minus a few seconds).

Did you even read the information I provided above? I don't know if the 9/11 Commission is right. I do know that the author of the "Army report" you keep referring to (and which I provided the link to and an excerpt of) has conceded that his data is not definitive. Now, if the author himself refutes his own report, who are you (or I) to question that? --Plek 06:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
@CJS102793: Be advised that it is considered bad form on Wikipedia to delete an ongoing dispute discussion. Please state your objections to the data I've provided in this thread instead (cite your additional sources, if any), so others can form an informed opinion. --Plek 10:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have edited this article to change the flight 93 crash time. Since 9/11, the US Army has determined that flight 93 crashed at 10:06, instead of 10:03. This is based on seismic data.

Above comment added by User:CJS102793 --Plek 21:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
@CJS102793: I've restored the discussion text that you've deleted for the second time. I'm assuming good faith on your part, so you might simply not be aware yet of the Wikiquette rule that says: "avoid deletions whenever possible". It's unproductive to delete this discussion, because your edits are being disputed. People who are trying to achieve consensus need to know why, so they can judge on this matter. I am also trying to discuss this matter with you, which tends to be a bit hard when my questions are flushed.
So, I'll repeat my question here for clarity: The UA93 crash time you put in the article is obtained from a report, commissioned by the U.S. Army, written by scientists of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The 9/11 Commission has determined the crash time by using multiple independent souces (FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, etcetera). They dismiss the seismic report because of the low signal-to-noise ratio of the data (see also the image above). Moreover, the author of the seismic report has sent an e-mail to the 9/11 Commission in which he states that his own data is not conclusive. Given all this, when even the author of the report doubts his own conclusion, why do you insist on putting the disputed time back in the article? --Plek 21:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plek, with no disrespect, if your so confident that that the flight 93 crash time is 10:03, why haven't you changed the time that's stated in the article right now?

Restored talk page text deleted by User:CJS102793 for a third time; please stop deleting text from the talk page, comment above by User:CJS102793 (please sign your edits by typing ~~~~)
Answer: I'm waiting for you to comment on your edits in light of the data I've provided in this thread. --Plek 22:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forget it. I'm convinced, and I think anyone of reasonable temper would be, by your argument. Keep the time at 10:03, and if it comes to an edit war, you're well-defended. No point entertaining CJS's obtuseness. Graft 22:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Graft, this is between me, and Plek. If you notice, we are not stooping to name-calling. We are having a spirited debate.

I'm not at all name-calling. I'm merely pointing out that Plek has advanced a reasonable argument, and your reticence in responding is no reason to keep the page in an erroneous state. And this is hardly between you and Plek; this is Wikipedia, after all.
Also, a spirited debate would involve you actually responding to Plek, which so far you have failed to do. Graft 04:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the article, I put in a new paragraph stating the dispute over the flight 93 crash time. I'll bet new users will enjoy reading about all of this. I thought I'd put it in there since the disput wasn't actually mentioned previously.

P.S. I didn't know it was bad form to delete stuff from the talk page. I promise I won't do it anymore.CJS102793 16:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is it important that we report on a momentary dispute? It has now been resolved; no one claims a 10:06 time anymore. Graft 17:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plek, Graft, I have now changed the UA93 crash time in the article to 10:03:11 A.M. local time (14:03:11 UTC). Now, I have to apologize for being "obtuse". I now know you two were right, and I was wrong.CJS102793 17:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean we can remove the "Controversy" section without complaint? Graft 18:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we can.CJS102793 18:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Graft, have you edited any other articles? I'd like to read them.CJS102793 21:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for attack

I would like to see a section on the possible reasons for the attack. This article just explains the effect it has on Americans, and makes it seem like there was no reasoning behind it, that it's just random and inexplicable. Wikiwikifast 23:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur; we may not agree with them, or find them accetable, but these attacks were carefully planned and had a motive, a reason to support them. It should be noted that the death of a single person is something to mourn and regret, let alone more than 3000 lives, which had no pratical involvment in the US foreign policy. However, one must keep it in mind, principally if a US resident, that this action from "terrorist groups" is actually like a pendulum, a response to the US government, which is direct responsible for the death of at least 1000 times more civilians than the attacks of September 11. (Yes, the US is directly responsable for over 3 million deaths worldwide, possibly many more, not to mention inderect ones such as those in Latin America)
I suggest a link to bin Laden's open letter to Americans in which he states pretty clearly why he he is making war on us, and what it is he expects of the West, to achieve a state of peace between his followers and us. I don't think it would be a good idea to reprint his writings, since he is the last person I want to get in a fight with over whether his words are copyrighted. His open letter to America runs to many many pages ... I will just give a short statement here what I got out of it.
He expouses an extremely fundamentalist view of religious teachings, in which he has an obligation to God to either convert people to his beliefs or to kill them to save their souls.
Many of the facets of western secular freedoms, over-emphasized by hollywood, are thought by him to be extremely sinful.
Much of what constitutes contemporary capitalism is deemed by him to be sinful, and against God.
He is pathalogically anti-semitic, and a believer in many conspiracy theories regarding the Jews. He blames us for their survival, and the very existence of the state of Israel. Until all Jews are wiped from the face of the earth, he will never forgive Christians for supporting them.
Remember the Crusades? There was a battle for the Holy Land, in which the Vatican persuaded many European nations to send feudal armies in an unsuccessful attempt to liberate the holy land from the "heathens." bin Laden blames us for that.
Now in my book, every nation and every culture has something to be ashamed about, but there has got to be a statute of limitations on getting even for the sins of the forefathers.
Today we do not blame Islam for sending Ghengis Khan on a rampage ... Ghengis was a peaceable buy, except in the struggles for dominance of his tribe, until he sent emissaries to a major city on the east west spice trade between East and West ... he wanted his people to get in on the action, as caravan guards. This city brutally killed his emissaries, so Ghengis killed everyone in the city, demolished the city, salted the lands, and insisted that the name of the city be erased from history, but he did not stop there. He might never have started had it not been for some Persians, but do we blame their descendents for the culture that launched Ghengis rampage? No.
But bin Laden blames us for the Crusades.

AlMac|(talk) 02:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

The attacks were the most lethal attack ever by a foreign force on the U.S., and the first upon the mainland since the War of 1812. -- Oh ye of short memories, have you forgotten the Japanese balloon bombs of 1944-5? They may have been largely ineffective, but 1000 of them did reach North America, and six people (including five children) were killed in one incident. -- Arwel 17:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hoax

The attack on the Pentagon was Hoax done by the Air force.--SPOC 03:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This topic just keeps coming back into this wikipedia like some noxious weed.

Spoc, you are writing NONSENSE!!! Photos have even been issued showing the crash. I'm also still waiting for an explanation for where the crew and passengers of Flight 77 (which, by the way, included the wife of the US Solicitor-General) are if that plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

This has been discussed and refuted at length in the past, and I'm getting seriously tired of every newcomer who waltzes in this page trying to revive it. Arno 04:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Newcomers? The first time you came here you were a newcomer. Chill out, anger/hatred was definitely the cause whoever did it. If any of the conspiracy theory can be proved (and elements of them are more credible than the 9-11 report) I suggest if it wasn't Flight 77 anything is possible. I think a plane (no reason not to think F-77) hit the Pentagon due to what appears to be an engine imprint to the left of the main hole (therefore not global hawk etc.). However have you seen the three exit holes? If they're real it clearly was not just a plane. The Pentagon has numerous cameras and I'm sure whatever happened is on many of them but we can't see it. However the truth about the WTC was on live T.V. and it's pretty clear what happened there. Lets all try to stick to the evidence, and leave the theories to other sites.


It's simply impossible that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. I've been to the Pentagon and I've been in a 757 and there is NO WAY that a plane that large could have disappeared into a hole that small. See the The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven for information from scientists, engineers and other professionals.

Picture

Is there somewhere to move that image at the beginning of the page? I hate left-justified images (they mess up the text), but I can't move it to the right, because it'll conflict with the template... ugen64 01:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuits

The link in the section about insurance claims and lawsuits is unclear, and the citation (link numbered 5) is not correct (it links to a Salon article called "Guru of the Unix gurus" about Rich Stevens). The unclear part is, specifically, "In April 2004, a U.S. District Court jury rejected claims [that 9/11 was two incidents for insurance purposes]." followed by "In December 2004, a federal jury decided [that there were two claims]." (I don't know the Wikipedia rules on date formatting, but should there not be commas in those dates to set off the years, as well?)

Anyhow, the U.S. District Courts are the trial courts of the United States federal court system. Was the December jury decision in the same court as the first one? Was there an appeal to one of the Circuit Courts of Appeals which then remanded the case for a new trial? What happened, here? Ari 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

terrorism

The Pentagon is clearly a military target, and the World Trade Center housed military intelligence offices thus it is a military target as well. As far as the idea that any military action by a non-government is automatically "terrorist", that is ridiculous at anyone who looks at the root of the word, and more importantly does not fit the Wikipedia definition of the word terrorism. In addition to that, Al Qaeda claims the mantle of the Saudi Arabian state. Being as for the past decade the Saudi dictatorship has only maintained itself by way of the presence of US military bases, it is an open question whether that puppet regime is the Saudi government or what is contained in this nationalist movement. Ruy Lopez 14:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia definition of the word terrorism." ROFLMAO!!!! The forces of anti-Americanism define a loaded term to their liking, then cite that definition to justify their further POV edits. That's why there is the real world, and there is Wikiworld. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sloppy rationale. The WTC was not selected for any military affiliation, but rather its symbolic value as an economic hub of American empire. More to the point the planes used in 9/11 attacks were civilian. I agree an encyclopedia should not rush to judgement on what is "terrorism"; since the government and media is all too willing to manipulate language to suit its interests. However, just because there are nasty things and deals with the "devil" a plenty in the world; we should not bend over backwards to rationalize terrorism. As to the issue of Saudi Arabia you lost me... the Saudi government is still the regime; are they in a difficult position of their own making (religious fundamentalism)? yes, but it doesn't change the nature of the government itself. Hence the internal struggle in that country which is underway, and was certainly long in coming. - RoyBoy 800 07:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists and war crimes and ...

Removing references to "terroist" with the explanation that the "WTC was a legitimate military target" and the fact that the mention of the attacks as war crimes (with citations) is excised are more than mere embarassments to an alleged encyclopedia. The fact that we have a cadre of Wikipedians intent on finding excuses for mass murder go a long way to explain why the U.S. acts "unilaterally" in the world to protect what it sees as its vital interests. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I agree they're trying too hard to find excuses. Actually, the Pentagon is clearly a military target, but that civilian airliner the terrorists used to strike it was clearly a war crime. Randy 21:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Execution of 9/11 attacks

I've removed it because it is a conspiracy theory unsubstantiated by any reliable or trustworthy sources. The "main article" it links to is similarly nonsensical and a probable copyvio. — Dan | Talk 02:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Arno 09:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Every statement is connected to a verifiable source. Is there anything specific that you disagree with or wish to contend to? --GoJ
  • The deleted segment establishes that war games were taking place on that day. Fair enough, and well-documented. However, is does not establish any causal relation between the war games and the attacks. It also does not explore whether war games were being organised in the US on days other than 9/11, or that 9/11 was unique in that it was the only day in recent history on which war games were being conducted. Because of all this, the extensive reporting on the exercises in the 9/11 article, while probably factually accurate, does not add any relevant information and reads like original research. The only well-documented effect of the excercises I could find was reported in the testimony of several FAA and military personnel, who said that they thought at first that the attacks were part of the excercises, possibly delaying the response. That bit of information could warrant a couple of lines in the article, but not an entire section. --Plek 12:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • However, reducing the section to a few lines would have the disadvantage of not allowing us to use a plethora of military acronyms and code names. Graft 15:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again with the children

Jesus H. Marimba. SNIyer1, you CANNOT keep reinserting that section without justifying it on talk. STOP IT. I will continue to delete it every time you insert it, because I find it pointless and highly irrelevant. I already put the relevant text on Laura Bush, where it is appropriate. I fail to see why it is important enough to go on this page. Please DISCUSS. Graft 19:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I would just revert Sanjay's (SNIyer1's) edits on sight. If he can't be bothered to discuss them, why should you be required to? SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, because to date I've managed to avoid getting entangled in any RfCs, RfAs, etc., and I'd like to keep it that way (I hate bureaucracy). And it's looking like that's going to have to be the case - as far as I can tell, SNIyer1 has NEVER responded to ANYONE's queries. I'm not even sure he knows what a Talk page is. Graft 21:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your little problem with SNIyer1's edits, so I've posted a notice on his/her/its talk page: User talk:SNIyer1#Your edits are disputed: use the talk page to discuss them. It's all up to you, of course, but I'd advise against a revert war. The 3RR rule will hit you just as hard, and nothing will come of it. Looking at SNIyer1's edits, I can see that he/she/it is trying to insert the same kind of disputed content into other articles as well. A formal complaint against this user might just be benificial to Wikipedia as a whole (and save you a lot of trouble in the long run). Just my $0.02, of course. --Plek 22:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of this - I'm not going to break the 3RR, if it comes to that. But hopefully it won't. Graft 22:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think he'll stop eventually so long as his edits don't stick. The section about children is also in 9/11 Aftermath, by the way. SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
You got me curious. He has 2700 edits dating back to September 2004 but not a single one to any talk page, not even his user talk page. Rmhermen 00:14, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yup, it's strange. No talk-page edits, no replies to messages left for him, no e-mail address entered, no edits to his user page. Edits articles by making one minor change per edit; seems never to use preview; never marks his minor edits as minor; and most of them are completely inconsequential, often wrong, rarely referenced, often schmaltzy and POV. When they're deleted, he just waits a few days or weeks, then reinserts them without comment. SlimVirgin 01:49, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you know his name is Sanjay... Graft 02:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From his other online posts. SlimVirgin 02:57, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I see you've not left an e-mail address. If you'd like more details, drop me an e-mail. It's probably best not to post a bunch of other posts here. Best, SlimVirgin 03:00, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've just received this following charming message from User:198 on my talk page, my first-ever contact with him. SlimVirgin 04:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the effects on children part on the 9-11 page (I noted you removed a vaild part of the legit. article) if you remove it again I WILL REVERT YOU UNTIL DOOMSDAY.--198 03:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you should realize "SlimVirgin" that section is well written, I think your trying to remove it because YOU don't like it!--198 07:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And 198 has also left this on my talk page:

I reverted you again and will contiune to ad infinitum, I don't care about rules such as the "Three revert rule."--198 07:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

198, I'd appreciate if you'd discuss this issue here and not on my talk page. I wonder if we can be talking about the same section, because the one I deleted couldn't be said to be well written by any standard, unless you've rewritten it and I haven't noticed. I just checked and you haven't. I have no objection to a section on the effects of children, and in fact, it's probably a good idea to have one, but this one is weak. "The attacks were disturbing to children": of course they were; they were disturbing to everyone. "particularly as the images were repeatedly replayed . . ." Ditto with everyone. "Many schools closed early . . " Surprise, surprise. "Emma E. Booker . . . became part of history." (a) what does that have to do with the effects on children? (b) that's already mentioned, (c) what does "became part of history" mean? "Herself a former school librarian": so what? That gives her no expertise regarding children's mental health. The bit about the open letters, I don't mind.

This section is as though someone wrote: "September 11, 2001 was not a very nice day for America. Lots of people died, and everyone was terribly upset. Some companies sent their staff home early. The President said not to panic."

Rather than reverting and leaving threatening messages on my talk page, why don't you try re-writing it to include some specific references to named experts saying x, y, z about the effects on children? SlimVirgin 08:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The attacks were disturbing to children, particularly as the images were repeatedly replayed on television. Many schools closed early, especially those with children whose parents worked in Washington, D.C. and NYC. Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, [4] [5] became part of history because President Bush was there when the terrorist attacks happened. The following day, the first lady, Laura Bush, herself a former school librarian, commented that it was not good for children to be exposed to replays of the attacks, and advised parents to turn off their televisions. She composed open letters to children, which were distributed by state education officials. A "Dear Students" letter went to middle and high school students [6], while elementary school students received one saying, "Dear Children."

Yes, specifically I'd like to see some sources for the bald statement in the first sentence, or qualifications for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A place to start when rewriting this piece of fluff would be to Google 9/11 "effects on children". I only did a quick scan, but came up with:

  • Georgetown University Study Examines 9/11 Effects on Children: This is just a news report; I haven't located the actual study yet. Also, at the risk of sounding like an armchair scientist (although I am a scientist and actually sitting in an armchair right now), the study does not seem to answer the basic question: "do children and adults react differently to traumatic events?"
  • Controlling what news your child sees from TV: A somewhat predictable response to that study, saying that parents should limit the amount of violence seen by their children. To their credit, the writers admit that even if you toss the telly, the kids will learn about things anyway, so the best reponse is to talk with your children about it. Contains some further links to other studies. Incidentally, I must say I find the picture at the very bottom of the article more traumatic than its subject matter, but that might be just me.
  • A National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet: A "How to raise your children" checklist. Contains references to earlier studies, done after the Oklahoma bombings.
  • Journal of Pedriatic Health Care: National KySS survey findings: Lots of data here, seems to answer my armchair scientist's concern about missing control group surveys.

Of course, there is lots and lots more to be found on this subject matter. I wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's suggestion that it should be possible to write a well-founded piece of brilliant prose on this topic. --Plek 12:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sanjay is projecting a bit, I think. He has written elsewhere that he was very upset by the TV images (many were, no?) & perhaps still think of himself as a child. --JimWae 21:02, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

  • I think there's a place for some of this content - but not as a separate section - for many people were horrified - not just children. It should be a paragraph within the reaction section -- which right now is entirely too upbeat - many adults who worked in lower Manhattan that day have had trouble returning to work, flying, etc. (My brother-in-law was across the street & saw & photographed people become sausage as they jumped out - and his bipolar disorder has intensified. Hardly anyone on his crew, who were working on the phone lines, have kept their job.) Also worth putting somewhere where Bush was & his first reaction. Have we covered communication lines destroyed, subway system still being repaired, people walking home for hours, intensified security, concern for civil liberties, inspection at all bridges to city, Wall Street closed for a week, stock prices plumetted, & the streets nearby STILL cordoned off, businesses setting up stand-by offices in the Midwest in case it happens again? --JimWae 20:50, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Well I readded the effects on children, I hope that we could come to compromise on this issue in mean time "Slim Virgin (and others)" please DON'T remove blocks of text without some sort of agreement. Now I find the text to be encyclopedic because it cites sources and it states the facts. Thank you--198 03:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi 198, I've removed it because there was a clear consensus on this page either to remove it, or to keep a rewritten version of it: for example, citing experts on the effects the television images might have had on children so that it's more informative, encyclopedic, and better written. Ideally, the person who wants to retain it should have a go at the rewrite. Are you up for that? SlimVirgin 03:37, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
198 left a friendly note on my talk page asking me not to revert, which I saw just after I had already done it, which made me feel bad. I dislike reverting people's edits, and so I've reverted my own revert (!) and the children section is now back in. However, 198, I believe there is a consensus on this page not to have it, or to have it differently, but you didn't respond to the posts. We should have a discussion this time with everyone voicing their opinion so we can make a decision. Sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin 04:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me--198 04:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could others say again what their views are so we can get a final consensus? SlimVirgin 05:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the passage does not deserve inclusion. Other than the facile observation that any violent act will be disturbing to most people that are aware of it, I see no evidence that these attacks were particularly disturbing to children. No one has produced any studies to date demonstrating that 9/11 in particular had a traumatic effect on children, or that it was traumatic in particular to children. Either of these might justify the passage, but I don't see any evidence for it, and moreover I simply doubt that it's true (except, obviously for those directly impacted, e.g. by the death of a relative). Furthermore, there is no clear reason to focus on children: this was not a crime perpetrated against children in particular, and the impact on children has no great political or social implications. We're not going to have a generation of children growing up scarred by this event, likely. Whether or not the prose is passable (which is scant justification for keeping it, in any case), it does not belong in this article. Graft 19:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is more or less my position too. I differ slightly in that I don't mind the reference to Laura Bush signing letters to schoolchildren, which is arguably interesting (minus the irrelevant school-librarian reference); and I wouldn't mind a well-written passage citing credible experts saying that the television coverage particularly disturbed children (if it did). But I'd probably prefer the passage be left out entirely, because as Graft says it's not strictly relevant, and I've read no evidence suggesting that the attacks disturbed children more than they disturbed everyone else. SlimVirgin 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Here are my comments. I will analyze the deleted/reverted paragraph first and then make some suggestions about the article in general.
About the deleted text: Some parts may be true, factual an referenced, but that doesn't make it relevant to the article. Let me elaborate. The article already establishes that the attacks were disturbing to people. To mention that children were disturbed by them as well is a redundancy. If one reduces the content, one would end up with the statement: "The attacks were disturbing to people and were disturbing to children." Arguably, the logical conclusion would be that people are not children, and vice versa; I doubt this is the intended message of the text's author.
I also find the term "children" overly broad and imprecise. Who are we talking about here? Minors, teens, adolescents? Also, were all of those groups affected to the same degree, and in what way? Or was the event equally disturbing to everyone, regardless of age?
Laura Bush, well bless her. The bit about her having been a librarian is superfluous, but her actions are notable. I wouldn't mind to see her stay.
Finally, the term "A 'Dear students' letter" is very non-descriptive (at least to a non-American like me; I don't know if it's an well-known term in the US). To me, it brings up the image of a "Dear John letter"; again, probably not the intended effect. A very brief summary of the letter's contents would be a lot more meaningful.
Now, about the article in general. I think the deleted text argument serves as a indicator that something is missing from the article: the psychological impact on the population. Yes, we have a "Reaction amongst the United States population" section, but all that is telling us is that everyone in the US took out their flags and cheered on their heroes. There is nothing about the shock, the physical and mental effects, the anxiety, the fear, the effects of subsequent "terror threats", etcetera. I think this is a very big omission. I'm not a US resident, so I can only judge what's going on there from second-hand reports, but I'd say that fear was (and maybe still is) a very strong factor that affected many events, post-9/11.
It doesn't happen very often that an entire people is in shock simultaneously. Clearly, some kind of research must be been done to study these effects. We have to find the results and report them. I'd also like to see a comparison of the psychological impact with other traumatic events that affected a large segemnt of the population (i.e. the JFK murder, the Challenger disaster, maybe the Oklahoma City bombing, etc.), to put it all into historical context. Did people react the same way in each case? How about, yes, children: have there been studies about the difference in reaction between age groups? Was there a significant increase in reported PTSD cases? Etcetera. Something can and should be written about all this. If needed, a spinoff article could be the result (with a summary in the main article here).
So, to summarise: I think the deleted text as it stands is only of marginal value, but some editing could make it at least passable. On the other hand, I think we should use this as a seed to elaborate on the psychological effects of the attacks, which at present are underrepresented in the article. --Plek 20:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: And I would very much like to hear 198's detailed opinion on this matter; a one-liner doesn't provide much information to gauge which editorial direction he'd like to take. --Plek 20:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PPS: I also find it weird that so few editors are actively engaged with such an important article. Personally, I think it's a bit of a train wreck currently, and it could use a fair dose of TLC. How about proposing it on Wikipedia:Article improvement drive? --Plek 21:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you reach a consensus on User:SNIyer1's Affects on Children piece, you might consider removing it from all of the other places he put it, such as 9/11_Aftermath & List_of_movies_and_television_programs_affected_by_the_September_11,_2001_attacks.

I'd say there's a consensus to remove the section about children, so I'll let 198 know, and give him the chance to raise further objections; if he doesn't, then we can remove it. Plek, if you have any interest in creating the section you mentioned, or a spinoff article, that would be very interesting and valuable. I agree it's something that's missing, though there may be such a spinoff already that I'm just unaware of. I don't recall seeing anything like that, however. SlimVirgin 20:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
198 has just left a note on my talk page saying if there's a clear consensus, he won't revert again if we remove it, so I've done that. Thank you, 198. SlimVirgin 06:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Is cat stevens the best example of overdoing it - If so, then he's a good case to show "security" is not being very overdone.

Yusuf Islam is already well known for his public endorsement of the death sentence issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie in February 1989. "Salman Rushdie, indeed any writer who abuses the prophet or indeed any prophet under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death," he said at the time. In addition, he has been barred from entering Israel because of alleged financial aid given to terrorist groups.
Is the singer a terrorist himself? Probably not. Is he an active sympathizer of terrorist groups? Perhaps not as much as he was in the past. Does he merit special scrutiny or special deference when entering the US? Scrutiny. Should he ever be permitted entry - perhaps so, but not clearly so.--JimWae 03:00, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
There's absolutely no doubt about it that Yusuf Islam is neither a terrorist nor a sympathiser of terrorism. (Not only is it a ridiculous to suggest otherwise, claiming otherwise would lead both you and Wikipedia in the libel courts - remember, Islam has already won substantial damages in the British Courts after one newspaper implied that the US was justified in preventing his entry into the US.) The article on Cat Stevens quite correctly points out that, not only does he abhor terrorism and terrorist activities, he also has been awarded a Man of Peace award by the Gorbachev Foundation in a ceremony attended by a number of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Please avoid careless speculation about someone who is a very well respected member of the British Muslim community, jguk 21:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you have misrepresented what I said. I said (in effect) he does merit special scrutiny.--JimWae 21:27, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)


It's the "perhaps" and "probably" I disagreed with. It sounds like we are agreed that the fact that the US approach to someone who is so anti-terrorism and pro-peace that highlights the flaws in how the US authorities are reacting, jguk 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He may be a fine person now for all I know - but he did support killing Rushdie & who knows how discriminating he has been in supporting Islamist groups? Arafat won a Peace Award too - need more info - not just on how he has managed to get non-Islamists to accept Islamists - but also how much he has spoken with fellow Islamists against terrorism - and not just mouthing the words (& I am not saying that is all he has done - just that "who knows?") - Certainly mistakes can & will be made in who to allow in (only citizens are guaranteed entry). The article focusses only on this high-profile person as if there is entirely no grounds for the decision, when there are some legitimate concerns to at least scrutinize him.--JimWae 22:08, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
On the contrary, there aren't legitimate concerns, as The Sun and The Sunday Times found to their cost [78], jguk 22:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite ironic really, when the US is still happy to welcome in prominent members of the IRA Army Council, and many Americans over many years have supported the IRA through their donations to Noraid, jguk 07:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gerry Adams has very pointedly NOT been invited to the White House for the St. Patrick's Day ceremonies (the first time a Sinn Fein leader has not been invited in years), whereas the McCartney sisters HAVE been invited. RickK 07:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

The numbers 2,986 and 2,997 total dead are both appearing in versions. Which one is correct and is there a source? Tkessler 07:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a source. I've never any death toll above 2,986 on any of the sites I've been on about 9/11.

2,985 also appears in the inset.

Under the official story

I think that decribing the official story (that 19 al qaeda terorists hijacked airplanes...etc) as being 100% de facto true in this article is not 100% objective. There is a considarabel minority in US and even bigger around the world that think it wasa not completely true to say the least. So i only added "Under the official story" before continuing witht the sentance 19 hijackers...etc. This does not say anything about it not being true or that there was certanly a domestic conspiracy. It only makes the article 100% objective after all that this is the official story is a non disputed fact, while the story itself as being 100% true is very much disputed. So i don't know why it was deleted back? If someone can explain to me what was wrong with my addition in making this an objective article? Or are there people here who do not stand anything less than undobtably accept official Bush administration story as undisputed fact even in supposedly 100% objective wikipedia?

  • We tend not to pay much attention to fringe conspiracy theories. Saying "Under the official story", besides being ungrammatical, implies there is any serious doubt about the story -- which there isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which there isn't? What a joke. --192.94.94.106

Al-Qaeda's Motivations

Al-Qaeda had previously been involved in several attacks on American targets, notably the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The September 11th attacks, if committed by al-Qaeda, were consistent with their campaign against the United States, undertaken because of perceived American support for Israel's oppression of fellow Arab Muslims in Palestine, and American support for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which persecuted Islamist militants and whose governments Al-Qaeda opposes.

This paragraph appears in the text but I cant help thinkign that it is advocating opinion and not fact. I personally believe they do it because they are 14th century throwbacks who hate the very idea of freedom and use any and every excuse they can find to justify their actions. After all, they didnt utter word one about the palestinians until they already had a string of terrorist attacks under their belt. At any rate, my opinion doesnt belong in the article either.

I suggest that the article stick to fact. Instead of saying that "Al-Qaeda did it because of percieved ...", the article should say "Al-Qaeda claims to have done it because of ... " This holds to the facts of without the vagueness of whether that motivation is actually true or not. The edit I propose is...

Al-Qaeda had previously been involved in several attacks on American targets, notably the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The September 11th attacks, if committed by al-Qaeda, were consistent with their campaign against the United States, they claim to have undertaken because of American support for Israel's oppression Arab Muslims in Palestine, and American support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt

This removes all of the emotional implications. Also, it should be noted that Al-Qaeda itself has claimed responsability for the attack themselves so I dont think ambiguity is in order. --Kraythe 02:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to al-Qaeda, their motivations didn't get much media play until they had a string of terrorist attacks under their belts. And the Arnett interview, in March 1997, well before the embassy bombings (their first big strike), contains ample mention of Palestine. So I don't think there's any call to really doubt their motivations. And they don't use any and every excuse they can to justify their attacks; they use a specific and consistent set of excuses. So, we should ascribe these as their motivation, I think. Graft 03:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In reality, the stated aim of Al-Qaeda does not match their actual actions. The reality is that they are primarily motivated by trying to institute a radical form of Sharia law throughout the planet and they subscribe to certain beliefs that the Quaran allows them to kill, with impunity, anyone they consider infidels. Indeed, they are, in their view, rewarded with such actions. Furthermore, its clear that they consider anyone that does not subscribe to their religious point of view, even fellow muslims, to be infadels. So the real fact of the matter is that things such as palestine or the saudi government and so on are merely excuses they use to try to politically justify actions and gain publicity. If palestine became its own country tomorrow, Al'Qaeda wouldnt disband. Nor would it disband if the Saudi royal family resigns. Al'Qaeda will reach its goals if and only if the entire planet reverts to 12th centruy, middle eastern, radical islam. However, their claim of reason why they did the sept 11th attacks should be in the article and that is why i have reworded it as stated.
On a related note, there is no reason to debate whether Al'Qaeda did the attacks as they have quite freely admitted to doing so. --Kraythe 11:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a good characterization of al-Qaeda's "stated aim". They are not pursuing a crusade to convert the world; that may be an eventual goal, just like the Southern Baptist Convention seeks to convert the entire world to Christianity, etc., etc. Many believers want to extend their faith everywhere; many non-believers find this threatening to their own faith. But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that al-Qaeda is, e.g., trying to implement Sharia law in the U.S. through its actions. Look at, for example, the way bin Laden talks about Khilafah in this interview. It is the Muslim world he is primarily concerned with restoring, and his antipathy to the U.S. stems primarily from its influence on that world, its support of tyrannical secular (by his standards) Arab regimes - this is what he constantly talks about; the need to drive out the U.S., to fight a defensive war to restore Islam to its proper place in the Muslim world, to strengthen the ummah. It is supremely inaccurate to say that al-Qaeda acts primarily to spread Islam throughout the world. Graft 01:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claims, allegations, conspiracies

There is a move afoot to tidy up and rewrite and rename some of the pages regarding these types of claims. Please be patient as we work this out. The debate is at Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks, PLEASE join in!--Cberlet 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mahmud Ahmad conspiracy theory

While the article mentions that the 9/11 Commission stated that "the origin of the funds used to execute the attacks remained unknown" it then goes on to say that "the head of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Mahmoud Ahmad was dismissed by President Pervez Musharraf when it was revealed that he had wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta; the transfer was not investigated further, possibly to prevent embarassment to the Pakistani government."

Firstly, Mahmud Ahmad was dismissed by Musharraf as part of his purge of senior army generals who did not support his decision to provide the US with three air bases for the air assault on Afghanistan. All the generals were dismissed or sidelined simultaneously on the very day that the air assault began.

Secondly, there is no credible evidence that Mahmud Ahmad ordered the provision of funds to hijacker Atta. The $100,000 that was wired to Atta was sent from the United Arab Emirates (not Pakistan) by someone using the alias "Mustafa Ahmad", a very common name. The same alias was allegedly used by Omar Saeed Sheikh, allegedly an ISI informer. But no proof has been presented that Omar Sheikh sent the money, or that it was done at the order of some ISI official. The 9/11 commission report does not express any suspicion in this regard, but instead says that the origin of the funds remained unknown.

The allegation against Mahmud Ahmad is based solely on a report first published by a newspaper in India, and because of the sensationalist nature of its claim, it received much attention. However, given the longstanding between Pakistan and India, it can hardly be considered a neutral source. None of the subsequent investigations have turned up any evidence implicating Mahmud Ahmad.

Glaring omissions

This page does not contain, or link to, any discussion of the response to the attacks. That is, how did the FAA respond, how did the Air Force respond, what was the normal protocol for dealing with hijackers, etc.? I realize this is dicey territory prone to the insertion of conspiracy theories, but it's precisely for this reason that I think it's important to include - this is valuable information that people should have. Shall we take up this difficult task? Graft 14:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would this go into a sub-article under Response? - RoyBoy 800 18:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Response, as it's currently factored, seems to include non-immediate response, like cleanup, bombing Afghanistan, etc. We have very little on, say, the actions of police and firemen in NYC, which is really rather criminal. Nothing on how flight traffic controllers responded, etc. Maybe it needs a sub-article, but there should definitely be at least a few blurbs about the immediate reaction here. Offhand:
  • FAA response
  • Air Force response
  • White House response
  • Police & Fire response in NYC & DC
should be briefly described here. Graft 20:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://sep11.wikipedia.org

Shouldn't this interwiki be more prominent than in external references - I would include it in the September 11th info box - any objections? Trödel|talk 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This wiki is a particular kind of nationalism and therefore POV - it should be removed. --Eleassar777 10:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You can't be serious. The victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were mostly civilians from all over the world. The Sep11 wiki is dedicated to all the victims, regardless of nationality, so how can you call it "a particular kind of nationalism"? Impi 11:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

More than 90% of them were citizens of U.S. and U.K. Why is there no wiki project on the Holocaust and 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake? --Eleassar777 11:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the answer to the question about why no wikiproject for the Holocaust is because the Holocaust happened generations ago. As to the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake, it's unfortunate that we don't have a wikiproject devoted to it. It's probably just that relatively few Wikipedians were directly affected by it. Not a good reason, but that's probably it. Mr. Billion 13:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly would you find a comprehensive list of the dead from the tsunami? Simply put, Wikimedia needs not be NPOV - simply each individual Wikipedia, as per its guidelines. That particular wikipedia has no guidelines of that sort. sep11.wikipedia is not affiliated with en.wikipedia and thus does not fall under its NPOV guidelines; however, as far as links are concerned, it's valid for an external link, and perhaps in the infobox, but that's been debated before. Long story short to those who want to remove it: Stop whining. --Golbez 15:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

1) In Memoriam should not necessarily list the dead. "The pages of In Memoriam provide an additional resource of personal opinions, individual experiences, memorials, and tributes, unlike the encyclopedia proper."
2) NPOV is one of Wikimedia principles. See its Main Page. If you think this applies only to Wikipedias, see the web address of "In Memoriam: September 11, 2001". --Eleassar777 16:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
re 1: Ask the foundation then.
re 2: I said each individual wikipedia formulates its own rules. de has different rules from jp has different rules from en. sep11 has its own set of rules. Should they move it away from wikimedia servers? Maybe. But that's not something to discuss here, that's something to discuss on Meta. --Golbez 16:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I will. I just don't know why then did you discuss this instead of sending me to meta already before. Otherwise, I only wished to express my opinion here on making the interwiki more prominent. --Eleassar777 16:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I came back to this page specifically to apologize for the tone of my earlier arguments. Sorry. --Golbez 17:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Does anyone know where the recent archives for this page are? I can't seem to find anything after the beginning of November 2004. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of the word "casualty"

Casualties refers to both dead AND INJURED.

I have changed the word to FATALITIES where appropriate. Themindset 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Everton's insertion of "allegedly" into the plane crashing into the Pentagon

Since the generally accepted view is that a plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon, "alleged" should be applied to claims that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, not the other way around. Also take a look at this page for Popular Mechanic's take on the "not a plane" claims. Mr. Billion


OK, I have found another site [79] Everton 11:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete Subpage

Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks still has markers reading "more info needed here" on some of its paragraphs. Those sections should be completed and the tags removed. --L33tminion (talk) 04:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

User:CJS102793 removed some discussion from this page and moved the page to September 11 attacks, both without discussion. I have reverted both. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 21:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Effects on children

I've removed the effects-on-children section that SNIyer1 and now SNIyer12 have been adding for months, despite there being a clear consensus on talk: that it should be removed. However, the consensus may have changed since then, so if it has, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Link to "Palestinian Authority threatens cameraman" article

Hi there. Please accept my apologies if this has been covered before, but I was going through the external links section and noticed the following link http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/pathreat.html to an article on Palestinians allegedly celebrating the September 11th attacks. Without wanting to get into the specifics, there was some coverage of this issue in the British media at the time, mainly alleging that such footage was broadcast and later revealed to be false and/or contextually manipulated. I'm going to try and research this, but it seems like the link shouldn't just be buried in the external links section, as it relates to an issue which might properly be considered a controversy. For example, it could be said that many people would not consider the American-Israeli cooperative Enterprise (hosting the article) to be an unbiased source.

I would like to stress that these are not my personal opinions - whilst my own point of view does not necessarily conincide 100% with that of the article, I can appreciate that it is well-written and provides an understanding of the popularly-held view of the Sept 11 attacks. I'm not about to suggest filling the article with fringe theories, but I don't see how the reaction of the Palestinians is any more relevant than the reaction of say, Scottish people, to the attacks, if we contend that neither was invloved in executing them. Thanks, everybody illWill 22:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If research shows the original media claims were manipulated, then I agree with Will that the link is not appropriate.--Cberlet 13:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I've since looked into it, and I was misinformed - the footage is genuine, although every replay I saw of the footage just featured one small group of people, most of whom are children. An article in German Newspaper Der Spiegel [80] claims that the celebrants may have been bribed with food, as does this page on Wikipedia [[81]].
Either way, though, I don't think this is sufficient to link the entire Palestinian people to this article without re-wording, it feels like this information has been included just to create an association between the Palestinians and the 9/11 attacks. I mean, there were small groups of extremists celebrating here in England too, but that doesn't mean there should be a section saying 'English people celebrating 9/11 atttacks'.illWill 00:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Crash

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. The following are excepts from the main article:

"The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania following passenger resistance."
"The crash in Pennsylvania is believed to have resulted from the hijackers either deliberately crashing the aircraft or losing control of it as they fought with the passengers. No one in any of the hijacked aircraft survived."
"Black box recordings revealed that passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers, who then rocked the plane in a failed attempt to subdue the passengers."

The article appears to be somewhat wary and inconsistant with the cause of the crash of the fourth plane in Pennsylvania. The first excerpt claims that the crash was caused by passenger resistance, while the second one says that it might've been a deliberate attempt by the hijackers, and while the third excerpt continues to backup the first one.

I think we need to get our facts straight. One or two links to a report on the cause would help. If the cause is still desputed, I think we should not explain it so matter-of-factly. For consistancy, I think the second excerpt is our best bet unless we know for sure what the cause of the crash was (via black box recordings) --Kevin McManus 19:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

News video archive

About a year ago, I came across a website that had downloadable videos of various newscasts around the world as they were broadcasting live on the morning of September 11th as the events were unfolding. I've tried searching for that website on Google, but I have not been able to find it. Does anyone have a link?

televisionarchive.org was the site, but it's gone. Mirror Vax 13:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity

I realize this is a very controversial topic, but this article is simply not objective enough, and simply demonstrates American public opinion. For example, it is commonly accepted OUTSIDE of the United States that the fourth aircraft was downed by the US military. It is possible that the US media has exercised self-censorship and so the American public doees not have access to this information, but deleting caveats such as "the 9/11 commission determined that...", or putting it under "conspiracy theories" simply destroys objectivity. Could we not have this article explaining that it reflects the 9/11 commission's determinations, and have a prominent link to "Disputes with the official account"? This would, hopefully, avoid offending people's sensitivity to the subject by keeping controversies off the main page, but also thereby reflecting a wider opinion?

This is an easily disproven claim. This page should not promote conspiracy theories. There are several 9/11 pages that already do that. I have removed several conspiracy links. Nor should it be a place for Arab-bashing, so I have removed several links to gratuitous Arab-bashing. There is already a page that looks at the all-to-real issue of antisemitism and charges relating to 9/11. It is best discussed there. --Cberlet 17:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What on earth does anti-semitism have to do with the notion that the US military shot down the plane, Cberlet? I am quite mystified.

I'm all for conspiracy theories, anon, but how do you know this, and where did you get this information from? --kizzle 00:48, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article[82], which originally appeared in the London Independent on August 13, 2002, is, I think, excellent in both sensitively disputing the official account of Flight 93 and highlighting the US media's reluctance to do so. I am unaware if the titular questions have been answered in the past three years, or whether the journalist's sources have since been discredited; Cberlet, as you seem confident that they have been, do please provide proof!

Please note though, my point is NOT that this article should be rewritten to claim that the flight was shot down, or even that the possibility should be mentioned; simply that inserting "The 9/11 commission determined that" would make this article more objective in places. Does anyone think these words word make it objectionable???


Number of 9/11 Victims by Nationality

Has anyone any idea of the number of people murdered on 9/11 per nationality? I know that there were about twenty citizens from my own country, plus about thirty-two from the UK, but I'd like to know how it brecks down overall. This is not an attempt to diminish the effect 9/11 had on both New York City and the USA, just an honest enquiry. Thank you. Fergananim

Small suggestion...

"According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the attack's ALLEGED mastermind, wanted to remove at least one member — Khalid al-Mihdhar — from the operation, but he was overruled by Osama bin Laden."

Added the ALLEGED in caps - more accurate?

Sentence removed

I have removed the following sentence, which immediately followed a comment regarding 9/11 being the largest terrorist incident carried out in the United States:

The death toll of 2,986 exceeded the toll of 2,403 dead after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Whilst definitions of the word "terrorism" vary greatly, most do not encompase the assault on Pearl Harbour. It was carried out by a government, was aimed at a military target, and its primary purpose was to kneecap the U.S. fleet's power in the Pacific. Apart from this merely comparing the number of dead is somewhat vulgar, especially considering the sheer numbers involved. Enlightener 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I do not see where that sentence says or implies that Pearl Harbor was terrorism - it's inclusion seems to be to compare 9/11 to other events in history - death toll does not show one event is greater than another, but does indicate something about the impact upon the nation. Removal is not the answer, but clarification might be --JimWae 00:10, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
    • It was not the sentence itself but more its juxtaposition. By placing it immediately after a sentence saying that 9/11 is the largest ever terrorist act in US history and comparing numbers is to appear to claim that Pearl Harbout too was a terrorist act. Clarify it if you wish, I will not remove it again, but I am not sure as to the purpose of comparing the death tolls for these two events. As the events are not the same, being linked only by their horrific death counts, comparing them in this way seems odd. Do we really need a numerical comparison to show that 9/11 was terrible? What effect did the actual death counts have on the resulting public outcries? If 2402 people had died would people have simply said "This is bad, but I've seen worse"? I think not. Enlightener 13:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


terrorist

as decided before, terrorist is not a word we use here, it was discussed and decided before that it be millitant instead, please change it back. Gabrielsimon 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(dont beleive me? check the archivesGabrielsimon 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Last time I checked, you don't stray from definition just because other people disagree with it. Something either IS or it IS NOT. Ergo Sept. 11 was either a terrorist attack, or it was not. Judging by the definition of terror, the pure unaltered definition, Sept. 11 would be considered a terrorist act, and just because people don't think it is, doesn't mean we should bend. This isn't about pleasing everyone. This is about being encyclopedic and sticking to the facts. Since when did wiki become a forum to discuss whether or not things were terrorist attacks? This is like arguing if Pollock's artwork is truly "art". It either is, or it is not. But we give him the benefit of the doubt and we call it art. Why can't we do the same to Sept. 11? How did I miss this whole argument? This is the dumbest decision ever made on wiki.Stanselmdoc 21:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

doesnt matter, this is why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid Gabrielsimon 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Accoring to the poll results places where the word was to be removed have already been removed. - Tεxτurε 21:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Gabrielsimon, please gain consensus here before making a unilateral change throughout the document that is not supported by the poll results. - Tεxτurε 21:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


I have blocked User:Gabrielsimon for a WP:3RR violation on this page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations several times. Please read it and contribute with your comments. --Pablo D. Flores 13:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 12

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Arguing over terms is the best way to bury and lose facts. HUGE NUMBERS of wikipedia discussion pages are trash-talk and term argument, especially anywhere that "terrorist" is used. Stick to the dictionary. It's the only way to ensure a true null point of view. Terrorist: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist Terrorism: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism ... This simple policy KILLS this discussion entirely. The remainder of your argument is deciding whether or not the attacks had a goal or not, because they were certainly "calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians". "in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"? ... that essentially means that any act of violence against civilians (wherein civilians are not simply collateral damage, but their buildings/homes/businesses the target) that has an aim... is terrorism. Changing titles to more obscure things that will cause them to be filtered out of a search for "terrorist attacks" is bad authoring.
All you little "freedom fighter" supporting types need to learn that fighting for freedom is done properly by attacking the ESTABLISHMENT of power that is in conflict with your FREEDOM. America causes civilian casualties in Iraq with quite some frequency. However, America is NOT TERRORIST because we do not TARGET CIVILIANS. Aiming a plane full of civilians at a building full of civilians in the middle of a city full of millions of civilians for the purpose of attacking an enemy for supporting Israel sounds like an ideological driven act of violence to me. There should be no truces or compromises in calling things what they are as defined in the dictionary, sensationalist or not. If you let people, they will argue that black is not a color, that trees falling in forests don't make sounds, and various other retarded crap. This all just gets in the way of disseminating facts and it needs to be STOPPED. There are better places than an encyclopedia for this kind of trashy, worthless discussion.
That discussion is currently dead. Calling human-caused attacks terrorism is fairly redundant, even if the term wasn't POV; redundancy is not a synonym of concision. Further, a discussion hardly overrules a policy: an example on the NPOV page. — Olathe 20:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
(moved from below) I agree with what Rebroad said about removing the word entirely. Simply describing the acts is enough. Those who already believe it is terrorist will find nothing to argue with. Those who already believe it is freedom fighting will find nothing to argue with. Calling it either or both is POV, as evidenced by the lovely, time-wasting debates about it (you can hardly say that either side is trolling). Let's leave the characterization of actions to the readers. The article will lose nothing important for it. — Olathe 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Notice from the person that probably caused all of this. A few days ago (July 7 2005 maybe?) I replaced the words "Islamist" with "CIA" in describing the persons involved in the attack. The "controversy" seems to have erupted since then regarding the definition of terrorist.

Certainly there can be no question that the attacks were a terrorist attack. But the evidence that it had anything to do with the religion of Islam is utterly absurd. Bin Laden was a CIA operative when Al-Qaeda was set up, and evidence suggests that the relationship still exists. If Al-Qaeda committed the attacks, they would be the best friends the Bush regime ever had, having given the regime the public support needed to bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq. The administration's old business buddies made out quite well building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and giving Halliburton and the arms industry billions in development deals. The White House's cozy relationship with the Bin Laden family, exposed in detail in Fahrenheit 911, seems to reinforce this.

Neverminding the questionable evidence of a 757 crash at the Pentagon or the definition of "terrorism," I was simply removing the false assumption that an entire world religion should be slandered on the basis of a world event that the Bush administration seemed ready and waiting for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.217.104 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 July 2005

"==Muslim Celebrations== Muslims throughout the world celebrated the attacks. Most famously, people in Gaza and the West Bank danced and fired guns in the streets. " can anyone claim this didnt happen?

Yes. Kingturtle 22:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. 'throughout the world' is an untrue description of what amounts to a disputed video recording of, at most, ten or twelve people (most of whom were children). illWill 22:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of interpretation of the politics of the people behind the attacks belongs in a section below, since much of this is tied up with POV and conspiracy theories.
On many occasions, President Bush has emphasized that Islam was not responsible for the attacks on USA, and the US war is not with Islam, rather, the enemy is an extreme viewpoint not representative of the Muslim religion. To say otherwise is to deny what the Bush administration has repeatedly emphasized.
The movie Fahrenheit 911 was a failed propaganda effort designed to defeat President Bush in an election campaign. Repeating any assertions from that source need some corroboeration.
Phraseology of next two sentences deliberately similar to make the point that yesterday's friend is tomorrow's enemy & vica versa in the world of international politics that have got so bad that there is a war.
In Iraq today, much of the resistance to the USA coalition (but not all of it) comes from foreign fighters from outside of Iraq, who feel a duty to oppose what they think the USA and its coalition stands for there.
In Afghanistan several years ago, when the former Soviet Union invaded, much of the resistance to the Russians (but not all of it) came from foreign fighters from outside of Afghanistan, who felt a duty to oppose what they believed the USSR's goals were there.
bin Laden was a leader of a major faction of those foreign fighters, and received aid from the CIA because during the Cold War the USA and USSR were engaged in a struggle that to those nations, was more important than the various nations they were struggling in. Once the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, motivation for the CIA to support the rebels in Afghanistan against a foe that was no longer there, evaporated.

AlMac|(talk) 02:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Economic Recovery

Anyone else pissed that Bloomberg Actually has the balls to use his so called downtown recovery, as a reason to re-elect him, If I see another 90 second TV spot for Bloomerg I'm going to run against that crook,

If the economy is recovering, and if he's doing so much then why are the blocks and blocks boarded up businesses, creeping further and further uptown, there are midtown neighborhoods for gods sake, that are starting to go under under his 'leadership' He hasn't done a single thing for this city except keep the poverty south of his townhouse.. He's a very slight improvment over Rudy(the little nazi) and any body who votes either of them into any political office deserves to have their citezenship revoked.. and, so it's not off topic, someone please tell me how someone can be the 'hero of 911' if he was elected months after 911?

Motive

I've changed the motive section to try and be more accurate and comprehensive; feel free to alter it, but I wanted to make sure that the following problems with the previous version were addressed: (1) the article gave Al Qaeda's beef with Israel a prominence disproportionate to that in the source it cited, yet (2) gave no mention of Al Qaeda's opposition to US economic policy in the Middle East or (3) allegations that the US oppresses the people of the Middle East - both of which are extremely important motivating factors. (4) It did not mention the White House's explanation of the motivation for 9/11, which is by far the most widely held in the media. (5) It was kinda repetitive. (6) Although I believe Al Qaeda was, obviously, responsible for 9/11, the article was a bit off-handed to people who think otherwise, and didn't mention the motivations attributed to the alternative perpetrators, which the motive section ought to do. I thought it was also important to point out that Islam was a motivation, but tried to temper that by suggesting Al Qaeda has a distinct interpretation of the religion.

Fourth flight's target

I read the sentence "Captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is rumored to have said that Flight 93 was definitely targeting the Capitol" as being POV and almost as if it were trying to be dramatic (how can a rumour be definite?).

I have changed this to "Captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is rumored to have said that Flight 93's target was the Capitol" to (hopefully) get a more NPOV.

There's no contradiction between "rumoured" and "definitely". Think about it, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is rumoured to have said (something like) "Flight 93's target was definitely the Capitiol". Cadr 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Muslims and 9/11

Osama bin Laden's second interview and denial of commiting the attacks should be mentioned. Otherwise this article will be completetly biased against Muslims. Also it should be stated that the Israel-Palestine Two-state solution was to be made public the day after the attacks and cannot be looked at as just coincidental [83]. "Is a predominantly Christian country and therefore is heretical and islamophobic" is not in the quoted article [84] so I have removed it.


Request for Comment:Links section (kinda sucks)

Current

Here's the current layout of all the see also / links section:

  • Media
  • See also
  • Victims
  • References
  • External links
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Books
  • Victims and damage
  • Further reading

Proposal

In a word: bleh. Here's my proposal:

  • Further information
  • Media
  • Audio
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Further reading
  • Books
  • Internal links
  • External links
  • References
  • Two-state solution

("victims and damage" and "victims" can be merged into one of these categories)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 13

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Opinions: U.S. the target, "most lethal" attacks

I fixed two statements of opinion in the opening paragraphs.

Opinion: These were attacks on The United States of America. The fact is that these were attacks on targets within the U.S. Invoking the entire nation-state as the target is a political opinion that has no basis in fact.

Opinion: The Commission concluded that the hijackers "used [the planes] to execute the most lethal acts ever carried out in the United States." This also has no basis in fact. How does the author qualify this? It is best to avoid qualifiers like "most" "greatest" etc . . . in Wikipedia articles unless quoting another source. If the author is quoting the commission report directly, it should be represented as such.

-r33tr33t

See also

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

Please keep this notice at the top of the page, right here, so people will see it more easily. A sitewide policy on the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). There is a truce on the words for this article. For details, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive. Maurreen

Clarification: The truce terms are roughly this: Keep the word "terrorist" in the first paragraph to give immediate concise information, leave in the couple of general references to "terrorist" (or variations of the word) and don't add any further description or labeling of the attacks or attackers as terrorist. Maurreen

Maurreen, It looks like the truce has been broken. The word terrorist is nowhere to be seen. Seriously, are there actually people who don't think the 9/11 attacks were terrorism?

I noticed it was changed on the 24th. I didn't know there was a truce. I have changed it back from operative to terrorist. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

They were terrorists, and nothing else. 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 - U.S. Candour?

What about the fact the administration allowed the attacks to continue as an excuse to attack the Middle East. Like the U.S. allowed Pearl Harbour attacks for an excuse to invade the eastern Asia’s and Japan.

-G

It is hard to measure "excuse", generally triggering a complicated soap-opera-like debate about implied motivations that is often influenced by one's personal political beliefs. Also, being an American, I can attest that many of us fealt real anger at the perpetrators and we were determined to find and punish the perpetrators and to prevent further similar or worse situations. The evidence that US planners "allowed" Perl Harbour to happen is still a unsettled issue, perhaps belonging under the "conspiracy theory" category.

OT: Pentagon + Boeing?

http://lepszyswiat.home.pl/bimi/pentagon.swf

I don't know what the hell exacly happened there, but can anyone explain this video to me? Ek8 23:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have questions about what struck the Pentagon. However, if it wasn't the aircraft the official account says it was, then we must wonder what happened to said aircraft. That's a lot of aircraft and people to make conveniently vanish.
Septegram 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe that people believe our government would have perpatrated such a horrific incident. This isn't the X-files, and that video is completely one sided! If we don't trust our government, then this country begins to fall apart. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeriandros (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 December 2005

I disagree with the idea that "if we don't trust our government, then this country begins to fall apart." We should be able to trust our government, but we shouldn't do so blindly or just for the sake of orderliness. That said, I do agree that the idea that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks is just plain nutty. People like conspiracies, though. --Mr. Billion 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Responsibility... (needs a fix)

Thank you to all who have contributed to this extensive article; but can someone explain the logic behind the September 11, 2001 attacks#Responsibility section. I was reading through the article (start to finish) and the flow was drastically changed after the paragraph To date, no convictions have been made in association with the attacks. and then on start of Civil engineers and the official report concluded that the collapse of... -- can we have an explanation on why the collapse of the WTC is under the heading of RESPONSIBILITY???

Sorry if this question has been raised before, but it seems that the talk about the WTC collapse is totally inappropriate -- under the current heading of course -- and also, it be best to wrap up the section on financing (such as, Osama did or did not plan the attacks but financed-or not, the attacks). I'd do my part, but seems this article and issue(s) is far beyond this rookies scope. Hey, I may have just completely missed the point, either way, if I'm wrong or do have some logic in my concern, let me know. PEACE ~ RoboAction 07:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

WTC buildings were unadequately protected against fire and this contributed to the collapse. This should be moved to another article, although I believe that is still relevant. BTW someone has vandalised the site I would correct it myself but do not know how. It has yet to be proved that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. Further Al-Qaeda was only accused not found responsible of the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. --Courageous 09:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I remember seeing on the news that Osama bin Laden did claim responsiblity for the attacks. I can't prove it, but I do remember this happening. It seemed like it was a longer period of time, but I can't remember exactly how long. Rt66lt 01:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Full Transcript of Bin Ladin's Speech". Aljazeera.net. 1 November 2004 (google cache here) says

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

and

"And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. "

Since bin Laden's earlier denials are featured prominently in the introduction, shouldn't this appear there as well? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious attacks?

Just clicked on this article and the first line reads...

The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of hilarious attacks carried out against the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Can someone please rectify this, I'm not sure how the article got to be this way but I wouldn't describe the attacks as hilarious.

<addendum> This article needs to be seriously edited... the titles of each section have all been changed to terms of racism.

There has been a lot of vandalism on this page today, it was reverted many times but somehow the bit about the 'hilarious attacks' was in one of the versions that others reverted to. This has been fixed, and the page has been locked now, so it will be protected against vandalism. --JoanneB 14:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I imagine there's also unreverted vandalism in the "Public response around the world" section, that's empty (I don't have time right now to check the article's history to see what it was like). RodC 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
That section seems to have always been empty. I'll remove it.-gadfium 20:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In Memorium

To the about three thousand folks, sixteen palm trees (in the Winter Garden), countless other living things, etc., that perished on 9/11/2001, I dedicate this section in your memory. Amen. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing lock?

I thought that this article was supposed to be locked against edits? Nick L. 21:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"All your Base are Belong to Us"

The transcript of the fourth flight, flight 93, is listed in quotes boxes as the transcript of All your base are belong to us. It may be hacked, since I couldn't find a way to edit it out. Looking at the edit page, the real article is underneath.

disappointing article for Wikipedia

There are two sides to every story and discerning, and writing, the truth takes great effort, but on reading this article my impression is that it falls disappointingly short of the judicious, evolved, balanced presentation of facts and theories that is the hallmark of a good article. Are people scared off by the controversy, by fear of the conspiracy theory label? There is no shortage of wild, easily debunked conspiracy theories out there, just as there is an abundance of disturbing, persistent questions about the official narrative. In brief, it didn't satisfy my search, sparked by reading a controversial article, and wondering "hmmm, what does good old Wikipedia have to say about this?".

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
You might look at 9/11 conspiracy theories before adding conspiracy theories on this page (which would undoubtably be reverted immediatley). I disagree that this page isn't balanced -- the truth is that none of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 tie together the known events as well as the "official" version. However, I encourage you to check out 9/11 conspiracy theories for a discussion of alternate theories, from the absurd to the mildly absurd.  ;-) --Quasipalm 16:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well sept 11 was a very disapionting time and i know i wasn't the only one who cryied.

Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif

I have removed Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif because:

  1. Animation is inconsistent with Wikipedia Image use policy.
  2. The image lacks Image copyright tags. --Aude 00:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Plane shot down theory

I have removed the newly added sentence saying that the fourth plane was shot down by the USAF and moved this claim to the 9/11 conspiracy page. There is not enough support, proof, or even murmer to add it to this main article. If it has not support at all it might be removed from the conspiracy page as well. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Collapse theories

"There has been much speculation on the 'performance' of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects and the relevant U.S. government agencies." Probably it is too much of a speculation (hence I have not edited anything yet), but since I read lots of reliable (!) technical information about this event, the main reason for the collapse ought to be fairly clear actually: HEAT. If you expose a steel construction to several thousand degrees celsius of heat emitted by that engine, even robust steel can fluidize and get a chemical consistency like lava. -andy 80.129.100.99 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We've had this debate quite a bit on other pages. Actually, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough for steel to melt -- however, steel doesn't actually have to melt to cause the buildings to weaken enough to collapse. So, in short, it was the initial impact damage (which some speculate blasted away fire-proofing on the steel supports), mixed with fuel and debris burning hot enough to weaken the surrounding structure until it finally gave way. There are sources on this on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page under in the links section that are skeptical of con. theories. (Some people actually think that the buildings were destroyed with explosives.) --Quasipalm 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I asked CTists on a few forums to cite a single structural or civil engineer or achitect who doubted the "official" explanation. They were only able to come up with three names. Two were engineers who said a few days after the attacks, that from what they saw on it TV looked like controlled demolition (CD). One [Romero] said he had been misunderstood, that it "looked" like CD not that he thought it was CD. There other [Shi] not been heard from since even though he is still teaching at the same University in China. David Heller who has a "Masters" degree in architecture from an unaccredited school that does not teach structural mechanics, wrote an article in which his ignorance is obvious. For example he he repeats the "the fires were not hot enough to MELT steel fallacy"

Even the engineer who designed the building accepts the findings of the ASCE.

Len

Fifth plane?

In the History Channel program "Grounded on 9/11" (which detailed the Air Traffic Control and United Airlines flight dispatcher involvement in the day's events, from the initial hijackings through the grounding of all commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace) there was mention of United flight 23 originating in Newark, which returned to the terminal before takeoff when the pilot was notified of the other hijackings. Several "unruly" men of middle-eastern appearance rushed off the aircraft, abandoning their baggage, which was later found to contain "Al Qaeda materials". Use of falsified IDs prevented their being identified.

More details appear in an account of United dispatcher Ed Ballinger's actions that day:

...Kirk is adamant that Ballinger did save the passengers and crew of United Flight 23, which on Sept. 11 was about to depart from Newark, N.J., to Los Angeles. Kirk believes Flight 23 was going to be commandeered.

Thanks to Ballinger's quick call, the flight crew told passengers it had a mechanical problem and immediately returned to the gate.

Later, Ballinger was told six men initially wouldn't get off the plane. Later, when they did, they disappeared into the crowd, never to return. Later, authorities checked their luggage and found copies of the Qu'ran and al-Qaida instruction sheets.

See also this entry from the "complete 9/11 timeline".

Can anyone provide further details and references for this "fifth plane" that appears to have been an aborted hijack? It should probably go in the main article if it can be confirmed...

-- Jhardin@impsec 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I just watched that program. They talked about Delta flight 1989, which took off from Logan at the same time as American 11 and United 175. Delta 1989 crossed paths with United 93 in Cleveland airspace, at the moment when the transponder for United 93 was turned off and a suspicious transmission was heard by air traffic controllers. ATC was unable to determine which plane the transmission originated from. The pilot of Delta 1989 then requested an emergency landing in Cleveland, raising the suspicions of officials. Delta 1989 eventually landed in Cleveland with SWAT units on scene. According to the history channel program, the "unruly" passenger turned out to be a man refusing to turn off his cell phone. That's the best I can do from memory. PK9 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not what I was referring to - note the before takeoff. I saw the show again and wrote down more of the admittedly sparse details this time, and have done some web searches. See the edits I made above...
-- Jhardin@impsec 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
They also mentioned a Singapore Airlines 747 jet in Alaska which apparently reported a hijack and was eventually escorted to a small airport in Canada by F16s. PK9 08:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

anti-Bush sentiment?

I don't like the assertion in the Alternative Theories section that "[t]here is a strong linkage between radical anti-Bush...sentiment and belief in alternative theories..." Wording of this is perjorative and not at all NPOV. It seems to imply by proximity that staunch opponents of the Bush administration are likely to believe unsubstantiated theories. I'm therefore removing that sentence.

-- Sacxpert 09:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule - Truth in our time

I would like to remind User:Truth in our time, User:Lamrock, User:Jimmywalter of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. If you continue to restore your additions despite being reverted by multiple other users you can be blocked. Please use this talk page to make your case and gain consensus for your changes. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

See also James W. Walter...sockpuppet accounts may or may not be same as person in article, but the message is the same.--MONGO 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not know this James W. Walter person and do not see how his message is the same as mine. Truth in our time 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
fyi, 'Jimmy Walter' is a person in the 9/11 truth movement who, although perhaps with good intentions, tends to try to insert extremist claims, such as nuclear radiation being found at the site of the WTC, without scientific merit. Unfortunately, he has a great deal of money.Bov 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction

The means employed by the hijackers, and their surprising efficiency, are, I think, of a paramount importance in order to understand what ensued.

Obviously, it is humiliating for a country like the United States, always ready to mock or invade smaller countries, to see that hundreds of their fellow countrymen and women were subdued by a handful of people armed with box cutters. This humiliation called for some decisive political action — and president George W. Bush did a dramatic U-turn on foreign policy (he had been elected on an isolationist platform, denouncing Bill Clinton's using the military to try to establish democracy etc. in distant countries; now, that's exactly what he pretends to be doing, big time). I don't think it is possible to understand recent US politics and foreign policies without the above elements.

Since this is a very important issue, it should be reflected in the introduction. I understand that some nationalistic "POV-pushers" are out there to remove such unsavory details, but we should not accept such censorship.

(I had to file a complaint for a bogus "3-revert blocking", by the way.) Truth in our time 09:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Bogus" blocking performed, along with the "Rfc" are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Golbez. Clearly, you performed an initial edit, followed by 4 reverts of essentially the same material, was subsequently blocked after being reverted by at least 3 different editors and upon the return from the block, proceeded to reinsert essentially the same material.--MONGO 09:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I contend that the fourth alleged "revert" was not a revert, since it heeded the comments by other editors. And, yes, I think this material should be inserted, as demonstrated by my talk message, and I do not approve of you, with the help of a friendly administrator, trying to censor it.
But we are here to discuss the contents of the article, not the RfC. Until you bring convincing arguments why this information shouldn't be in the introduction, I'll consider that you're trying to impose your political point of view, and act accordingly. Truth in our time 09:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Referring to unarmed civilians as "surrendering" is ridiculous...box cutters or not, evidence shows the terrorist also claimed they had bombs, which certainly put a damper on any possible atempts to retake the planes initially. Passnegers had no idea they were going to hit the WTC towers until it happened...they couldn't see out the front of the planes afterall. Claiming that the U.S. was "humiliated" is also POV on it's face and has no business in this article.--MONGO 10:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You make the interesting comment that the unarmed civilians aboard the planes did not know (at least, not until it was too late to act) that the airplanes would be used as fuel bombs. This is probably true. Instead, they just did what was expected of passengers (at the time) in hijacking attempts — that is, not resist. That's called surrendering. See on dict.org: to give up one's self into the power of another; to yield.
The United States was also humiliated, that's evident (and is also reflected in a wide variety of commentaries, just go on Google). And it definitely has business in this article, for this humiliation explains the following policies of bravado and invasion pursued by the United States in the following years. Truth in our time 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, at least 3 editors feel that your data was not in compliance with WP:NPOV and that is why it was reverted. In the extreme liklihood that similar edits of such nature are also going to be seen as a violation of neutrality, you may wish to pursue an Rfc on said comments, achieve a consensus for the inclusion of such material, and then you'll have that to back it up. Your useage of the words "surrender" and "humiliated", along with the curious manner of the rest of the sentences don't add much to the article aside from appears to be an attempt to insult. Perhaps an Rfc on the wording should be the route you should take.--MONGO 10:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
What does it mean to say that "the U.S. was humiliated"? First, how can humiliation be proven or empirically talked about - it's an internalized *feeling*. The most you can objectively say is that "x says s/he's humiliated". Secondly, and more importantly, how is a *nation* humiliated? Who was humiliated? Do you mean that more than 50% of the population felt humiliated? I wasn't humiliated. None of my friends were humiliated. I don't recall any polls of people reporting they were humiliated. Perhaps you mean that U.S. leaders were humiliated? If so, please show their quotes reporting this. I think the only thing that can be objectively said here is that *you* personally think that the U.S. was humiliated.


Revert war

Neither of the two versions are complete, we should set up a temp page, craft a consensus version, and then move to the main page. Stirling Newberry 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative theories

Sections I don't like from Alternative theories of 911:

Because of the gaps, omissions and speculations in the public record, and because of political preferences, there are groups that actively promote the theories of the 911 attacks which vary significantly from the most widely believed narratives.

  1. The expression "because of [...] political preferences" makes me think that the writer wants me to believe that who supports these theories is always politically biased.
  2. Why do we speak about "groups"? There are also single individuals which write books to promote this theories.

These theories generally rest on evidence which has been (scientifically?) debunked, such as erroneous theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers. However, gaps within the public record, the lack of explanation for particular details, contradictions which have later come to light, including revelations of Able Danger, continue to fuel speculation.

  1. Really "these theories rest on evidence... such as..."? Why can't we think that these false "evidences" are not essential to these theories? It looks like the writer (using the word "rest") wants me to believe that these theory are false because rest on falsehoods.
  2. And what about the word "generally"? The writer says that "these theories generally rest on ...". The use of the word "generally" makes me think that the writer wants me to believe that such theories are almost always connected with these "evedences" in order to make them look less believable.

--Pokipsy76 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the wording of the section should follow along the lines of:

These theories have not been accepted by the investigative, scientific and or engineering communities because all the known evidence which was collected does not support the hypothesis presented by the theories. Like other scientific studies done on Bigfoot, UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster, there appears to be little or no credible evidence to support the psuedo-science presented.

That would look and sound better, I think.--MONGO 17:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know of any scientific community taking position about 119. Science has nothing to do with politics.--Pokipsy76 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
There certainly are well-respected individuals in the scientific community that have publicly said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are nonsense. 9/11 wasn't just a political event. --Quasipalm 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Even if it's true it would be a personal opinion having nothing to do with the scientific knowledge of these individuals. --82.53.169.101 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculations and alternative theories

When it's written:

These theories generally rest on evidence which has been contested by most experts in the scientific, engineering, and journalistic community.

is not clear what the writer is referring to (what kind of evidence???). I think someone who knows what it is referred to should attach some explanation.

--Pokipsy76 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


9/11 Television Archive

There used to be a page that archived the television coverage of 9/11. You could just choose a channel and watch the news. Do you have any idea where it has gone? Lapinmies 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

20th hijacker

This section kind of makes a lot of assumptions - where is the proof of all this? simon 22:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

343 NYC Firefighters plus one

I see there is some protocall for editing this page, so I hope it's ok that I made this change to the article. The reference to 343 firefighters dying in the attack on the WTC is a commonly misquoted figure. It is actually 343 New York City firefighters because the figure does not include Kieth Roma, a member of New York City Fire Patrol who also died in responding to the attack. Fire Patrol, which predates the official fire department is an independant org sponsored by insurance companies. They have (I believe) three firehouses in NYC, including two in Manhattan. The following is the text that I have changed to make this correction, with additions marked here in brackets: "including 343 [New York City] firefighters, 23 New York City police officers, 37 Port Authority police officers, [and one member of New York City Fire Patrol], in the WTC;" EGregory 14:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see that the change above was stricken from the article. Does anyone know why? To leave this firefighter off the list of fatalities seems unfair just because he was not a member of the FDNY. You could say "344 firefighters..." but then you run into the problem of everyone thinking it's an error, since 343 is the known number that sticks in everyone's minds. --EGregory 15:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who deleted the reference to Fire Patrol or why. I don't see where this change is made on the history page. But if you need documentation, here's some: http://www.silive.com/september11/lr/index.ssf?/september11/lr/roma.html If you need more, just google "Keith Roma." EGregory 17:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Memorials

Several memorials are discussed in this artcile. Of course there are many more around the world, particularly in the communities surrounding Manhattan where many of the dead had lived. Perhaps there should be a page where these memorials can be listed. For example:

-- "Postcards," Staten Island, NY -- Architect Masayuki Sono designed this memorial on the St. George waterfront overlooking New York Harbor. The monument consists of twin white monoliths that bend apart like doves' wings. Between them are plaques dedicated to the 258 Staten Islanders lost on September 11, 2001. Each plaque bears a silouette designed to resemble the honoree. Standing between the wings of the monument, one looks out over the harbor at the site of the missing towers. Ground broken, September 11, 2003; dedicated, September 11, 2004.

I also read about the following in the Staten Island Advance ("Going Up and Across," an article about the Bayonne Bridge, Wed., Oct 19, 2005) "...in Mayor Dennis Collins Park. The park houses a monument to Sirius, a four-year-old golden retriever who perished in the Sept. 11th attacks. There's even a dog run there, welcoming canines from New York and New Jersey."

--EGregory 14:00, October 21, 2005 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition as a "claim"

This is so outlandish that it is a shame that it requires a response. None of the sites listed have any credibility in the real world. Serious researchers do not try to prove a negative because it is not possible. It is a trick of false logic. The "reward" is similar to a classic huckster con game. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, there is no chance the reward will be given unless you take the matter into civil court.
Arguing with a conpspiracy theorist is like trying to toilet train a badger. It annoys the badger, and you get covered in crap. --Cberlet 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I second Cberlet's comments.--MONGO 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I second Mongo's seconds. --Quasipalm 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
On the topic, I just reverted a conspiracy theory related edit by User:142.179.143.133. I'm surprised it went undetected for 4 whole minutes as I'm not really that quick on the draw. Keep an eye out for repeated interjections of theory on this article, as they may stem from the same source. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

s/terrorists/fundamentalists/

In the first paragraph it refers to the hijackers as terrorists, well that could be said of 2 of the 4 sets of hijackers but the third plane at least hit a military target. I don't know if that's a direct quote or not, but it's inaccurate. The second thing is the "among the most signficant events..." line should be qualified with a reason to why such a relatively small loss of life should be such a significant event outside the US. So Ill make a couple of changes, please discuss...

It is the largest single loss of life from one terrorists attack "plan" in world history and they all happened in just a couple of hours. I think that sums it up.--MONGO 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The line in the article is not "among the most significant terrorist attacks..." it's "events" , and events that include the deaths of hundreds of thousands (I know, mostly non-americans but still). So I would be happy to change the line to "among the most significant terrorist attacks" otherwise I still prefer the qualification.

Combine sections

The article has two sections covering the same general topic "Collapse of Towers" and "Collapse of World Trade Center." This should be consolidated into one section. I simply do not have the time to do it now. Can we get someone to take that on? RonCram 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Death count

Someone should look at this edit [85] by an anon. I don't know it it's true also check the figure on List of wars and disasters by death toll and in the info box on the page. I don't know which number is right. More people should be keeping an eye on such a high profile article. Broken S 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

September 11 Wiki

I don't know if this was mentioned anywhere... but we have a dedicated a September 11 wiki: sep11:In Memoriam. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Total killed

Curious as to if anyone knows the exact number of fatalities...this edit [86] indicates that the number mention includes the number of hijackers in the total, yet I always thought that the number listed traditionally as the total included everyone except the terrorists.--MONGO 00:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


Why is User:Patsw bandying about inaccurate figures of the 9/11 death toll? It is way above the offical toll - on this wikipedia article the death toll reads "The official count records 2,986 deaths" You have quote the right-wing Daily Telegraph with a figure of 4,537 people -max rspct 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Photographs

I'm a lazy ass, but damn the placement of images in this article is a disservice to the entire Wiki...can somebody please use gallery view, left-based thumbs, anything and everything to clean them up? I would love you forever. Fondly yours, Sherurcij 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Bodenstein?

In Motive, the paragraph beginning "The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animus towards..." has a quote from Ralph Bodenstein. Where is this quote from? And who is he, anyway? What qualifications does he have to be quoted in the article? Without a source for the quote and an explanation of who he is, it seems that the sentence should be removed. Objections?


Terrorists verses soldiers?

Very POV and a big shame that this article has sat in wikipedia with such an inaccurate, loaded and POV term.

EVIDENCE OF REUTERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DIFFICULTY IN USING WORD TERRORIST :

"Do not forget the infamous words of the Reuters News Service after 9/11, when they announced they were not going to use the word 'terrorist' to define the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center because 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,'" he says, quoting the news service. (from the American Family Association website[87]) ..taken from what I guess is a right-wing/pro-us gov website.. but used to illustrate that even Reuters had problems with the word terrorist. -max rspct 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Max, but how is calling them "soldiers" not even more POV? Soldiers are recognized by a a recognized government...are you suggesting that a recognized government sent these guys to hijack planes and attack purely economic and military targets? Reuters is merely a news agency and regardless of their seeming ambiguity, I never saw them refer to the hijackers as soldiers.--MONGO 16:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the non-neutral viewpoint is to imply some sort of moral equivalence, as if we said in 1939 "war has broken out on the German-Polish border." I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'even Reuters,' but I suspect I might mean something different if I said that.
I think truce has worked well. We should continue to abide by its terms. I also urge you not to keep reverting. I count four reverts in a few hours, unless I'm mistaken. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of terrorists is so obviously bias.. I don't know how u get away with it. Where is consensus on truce? was it voted on as well?? -max rspct 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the term "operatives" also misleading? It suggests again to me that the hijackers had the endorsement of a recognized government.--MONGO 16:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Max rspct, clearly we all feel strongly about this, but please don't use the edit summary for personnal attacks. Alleging bias is not helpful. Please assume that we're all working in good faith. Again, let me remind you about the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 is a case where there's strong consensus (not just WP:Consensus) that the acts were terrorism. There may be some news agencies that prefer to use other terms, but most do refer to the attacks as terrorism. Using the term "soldier" or "operative" implies that the hijackers had some sort of official backing. Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So you would call any operative/agent/soldier/guerilla who fights against an government or state as a terrorist? Al Qu'ada had the backing of Afganistan government at the time (or one could argue he and Taliban were trained by cia if u wanna go down that route). Use of 'terrorists' IS POV as the term has so obviously been viewed as such by academics and the worlds foremost internation press agency Reuters. On the question of reverts - I think it is YOU Tom Harrison who should lose his admin privilages for defending such biasness.

A CHUNK FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON Media Bias: "..The best example of this bias is the use (or avoidance) of the word "terrorist". Most mainstream media will not use this word, opting instead for less accusatory synonyms. For example, a 2005 memo to the staff of the CBC states:

Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.

In a widely criticized episode, initial online BBC reports of the 7 July 2005 London bombings identified the perpetrators as terrorists, in contradiction to the BBC's internal policy. But by the next day, Tom Gross and many others noted that the online articles had been edited, replacing "terrorists" by "bombers".

Even more subtle is the preference of the word "terrorist" in one context, not another. For example, searching the CBC web site, the string "Palestinian suicide" was used 14 times more frequently than the string "palestinian terrorist", but "Al Qaeda suicide" was 23 times less frequent than "Al Qaeda terrorist" (in contradiction to the memo cited above). Clearly, CBC editors want their readers to judge these acts differently, depending on the origin of the people targeted for killing. This particular word bias is not unique to the CBC, but can also be found in many western news source.

Another example of language bias would be using the phrase "freedom fighters" instead of "insurgents." The former phrase creates an image of a noble struggle, while the latter is more neutral."

Please note that I am not advocating the use of term 'freedom fighters' -max rspct 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ps Although I am amiable, co-operative and have good intentions, I have finished with assuming you are operating in good faith .. because u are threatening me with a block over the removal of clear POV bias. -max rspct 17:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See> Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Addendum: I have read the 'terrorist' archive - It seems all the voting (bar one very close vote) went against those who wanted terrorism in the article. You have obviously been pushed back to a 'truce' - but this was dependent on a "sitewide policy". But since this has not been developed or applied ..the truce must come to an end on this. I have requested comment and am close to reporting administrators for 'admin abuse' -max rspct 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Max, the "threat" of a block is merely a reminder that there is a rule, WP:3RR which clear states that it is a violation to perform more than 3 reverts of the same or similar content to the same article in a period of less than 24 hours. The rule is there to help people disengage from edit wars, not to bury your contributions. The hijackers of the planes that were subsequently flown into the those targets are most closely defined as terrorists. If they were soldiers, they would have had the sanction of a recognized government. If they were operatives, they may of may not have had the same endorsement, but I've never seen that word used in the latter sense. If they were freedom fighters, then whose freedom were they fighting for...Palestine? I've never read that the Palestinians sponsored the attacks. Now had they flown their own planes into the U.S. and struck the towers and pentagon, the definition of soldiers may possibly be more accurate, but the fact it that they hijacked domestic airlines, kidnapped those aboard, murdered them when they flew the planes into their targets, and killed primarily civilians (non combatants} with their actions...this fits the definition of terrorism, regardless of the attempts by Reuters et al to avoid using the word.--MONGO 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're just giving me a deluge of your own POV. USA has been killing non-combatants all over the world. It wants to bomb Al-Jazeera because it doesn't agree with what those civilians are broadcasting. We aren't allowed to call them terrorist. The bond dealers were part of the economic stucture of US economy.. and your not going to argue that those in the Pentagon were not legitimate targets? By US governments own definitions of structural/economic targets AND it's own views on collateral damage..This "declaration of war" was most a legitimate action according to actions/terms already practiced by US forces outside the borders of USA. -max rspct 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to cut and paste the UN definition of terrorism here for easy reference for you:
  • While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism [88], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [89]
  • UN short legal definition, also proposed by A.P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime." [90]
  • In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [91]

MONGO 17:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Max rspct, I'm not an admin, and have no more privileges here than you. I reported you for violating the three-revert rule. It's no more reasonable to take that report as evidence of bad faith on my part than it would be to take violation of the rule as evidence of bad faith on yours. I don't doubt that you're working with the best of intentions to improve the article. You will be more likely to succeed if you refrain from personnal attacks. Besides making reasoned discussion more difficult, they make others question the substance of your argument; as does mere repeated assertion. If the use of the word terrorist were obviously non-neutral there would not be so many pages of discussion.

I do call the men terrorists who hijacked passanger airliners and flew them into the world trade center. That seems to me consistent with the Definition of terrorism, and with the key criteria identifying terrorists. Still, I don't think it's appropriate to use the term more than necessary for a facutal presentation.

I can't help thinking that much the same thing, on both sides, has been said by others. The result was inconclusive, hence the truce (which was before my time, so I speak subject to correction). I'm not sure what's gained by recapitulating it all here when we can read it in the archives. I would be surprised if the outcome were less inconclusive if we did it all again. Unless there is new information, I support abiding by the terms of the truce. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The UN is not an unbias source. The last paragraph can apply to ALL wars. E.g terror bombing of dresden, carpet bombing of cambodia and vietnam, Phoenix Program, bombing of Serbian bridges during Kosova campaign was intended to destroy infrastructure and serbian morale (civilians too) as stated by Wesley Clark and had nothing to do with stopping Serbian Paramilitary and ethnic cleansing.......I can go on but I have to go - I am talking here to US editors who obviously have an too much emotional attachment and POV on this subject. And waddya mean Reuters (and BBC etc for that matter) doesn't count in the assesment of media bias and usage of term terrorists. I strongly diagree that the vote was inconclusive ... what is your problem?? -max rspct 17:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The actions of the hijackers is in concert with the UN definitions of terrorist.--MONGO 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the UN is constantly redefining the definition of terrorist. I prefer academic sources -max rspct 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, please cite some scholars, aside from Ward Churchill, who referred to the workers in the Twin Towers as "little Eichmanns"...what scholars would refute the UN definition and if so, what definition do they describe as best characterizing the actions of the hijackers?--MONGO 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Soldiers??? Excuse me "Max rspct", but I was a soldier. The perpetrators of 9/11 were no soldiers, as any veteran can tell you. Rearden Metal 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to request for comment I will be very candid. My nearest relative worked on a high floor of the World Trade Center. He was one of the very last to escape. Most of the people from his office are no longer alive. I joined the United States Navy because of this and am now a war veteran. The idea that this could even be a subject for debate astounds me.

That day's events were terrorism in the truest sense. The World Trade Center, where the bulk of the lives were lost, was a set of civilian office buildings. This bears no resemblance to collateral damage of a military attack. No other location in New York City was targeted even though the city hall, courts, and police buildings were mere blocks away. The perpetrators hijacked civilian airliners, another classic terrorist act. This cannot be compared to wartime atrocities. The perpetrators were not soldiers and the United States was at peace.

I find it stunning that anyone would contest the term terrorist as applied to those nineteen perpetrators. If you wish to criticize United States foreign policy there are many productive ways to do so. As a member of that democracy I vote. I contact my elected representatives. I write to newspapers. I do not always agree with my government's choices. However, it takes a great act of personal restraint to read any further when someone begins by excusing an act of mass murder. The attempt to use this article as a platform for some political agenda is deeply misguided. It is in extraordinarily poor taste. Max rspct, as one human being to another, I ask you to stop. Durova 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh how high? I think most of the comments above show that US editors are dominating this page and obviously have an emotional or mental health interest in keeping this page bias and riven with POV. I am not here to offload criticism but to remove biasness from the article. Again I ask - where is evidence that a 'truce' is in operation and where is consensus or vote on it? From what I can see voting has been solidly against use of the word terrorist. -max rspct 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I ask you to withdraw that insinuation. It is highly disrespectful. Durova 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To call nineteen men who hijacked civilian airliners and flew them into civilian buildings "terrorists" is not POV, it is common sense. After all, if this act was not terrorism, than the word itself has no meaning, for this action surely fulfills any available definition of terrorism. They were not soldiers, for they were not members of any recognised state's army (and identifiable as such, the Geneva Conventions are clear on that), and they were not operatives either for the same reason. They were, in short, extra-state individuals targetting large numbers of civilians in order to cause terror and influence an audience, and so they are terrorists. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Durova, Tom Harrison and MONGO on this issue. — Impi 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! Where am INSINUATING what??! >>Again I ask - where is evidence that a 'truce' is in operation and where is consensus or vote on it? -max rspct 13:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't "shout" at other editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't vote on everything. Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, answer my questions on the truce and votes then. -expain and justify. I don't wish to replace terrorists with word soldiers...Although it is arguable.. But I think there a qualitative difference is seen between 9/11 and, say the London bombings - which really were targeted at civilians/those using public transporation system. To argue that the 9/11 attacks were aimed at civilians and not the military-industrial complex and economy of the US is wrong. (p.s for those that see it as an issue - i am ex-soldier myself and brought up in military family so there!) -max rspct 13:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Kindly cease spouting such Ward Churchill-esque bullshit. Were the people in the hijacked aircraft and WTC towers civilians or not? Clearly, according to any objective definition they were, and so the attacks were terrorism. I actually find your comment all the more sickening for me personally because I lost a friend in that attack, are you now going to tell me that he was somehow a legitimate target? As if you could even define attacking the WTC towers as "attacking the US economy" - by that measure ANY attack on civilians is justified because terrorist attacks harm a country's economy, so would you be willing to support that? As for consensus, take a look around, you're being opposed by no less than four editors. Now, 4-1, in plain speak, means consensus is against you. — Impi 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Go vent spleen somewhere else. STOP SWEARING AT ME! Keep your emotion to yourself. As for the civilians, collateral damage in the cold, hard terms that the United States military have set out already. Are you going to label US Airforce as a terrorist organisation? no ... think about it. It is known that US government wanted to bomb Al Jazeera because it didn't conform to it's own view of whats actually happening in Iraq, Afganistan and the rest of the world. What about all the collateral damage in Iraq etc. And don't tell me those in charge aren't aware of the risks to civilians. Who is terrorizing who? Who should be labelled terrorist? They are insurgents if pro-american (yea don't forget that Taliban and Osama B have been connected to and funded by successive US governments). I am not trying to justify 9/11, I just want fairness in the reporting of world events. I know there are 4 american editors with very strong points of view on this - perhaps they should't be editing this? is there any chance of unbiasness?? Please answer my questions (anybody) regarding the truce and voting... or shall I start pointing things out myself? -max rspct 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Max, I know nothing about any truce in regards to the use of the word terrorist. I do know that, according to the UN "approved" definition of terrorist that the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 fit that description. No better alternatives have been mentioned.--MONGO 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Max, I'm not American, not that it matters to you of course. Besides, since when does the nationality of editors mean anything? Furthermore, if you cannot comprehend the distinction between intentionally targetting civilians and collateral damage, then there is little point in continuing to debate you. — Impi 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
And my uncle is an engineer who spent part of his career in Saudi Arabia designing air conditioning systems for mosques. Not that it matters to some people. There are legitimate citations in defense of the present wording. The one editor who opposes the majority cites POV OR. Wikipedia policy excludes such material. Someone posted a request for comment and the editors here have gotten it. I wish you well. Durova 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's way too much sentiment in this discussion. Which is a logical result of the severity of what happened. But that should be kept out of the discussion. The question is whether the word 'terrorist' is pov. I've had similar discussions about words like 'regime'. In that case, there's a clear definition, namely the implementation of a form of government (irrespective of who is in government at one moment - the cabinet or administration as that is called). Still, one never hears of a 'democratic regime'. So the term may be neutral, but usage isn't. In the case of terrorism, there isn't even a proper definition, as illustrated by the fact that the UN can't agree on one. I've even heard that the reason for that is that every time they think they've got one, it turns out that it also applies to the US, and of course we can't have that. :) (Is there any truth in this, by the way?) Another issue that has come up in the Netherlands is that by most definitions the underground during WWII was a terrorist organisation. And of course we can't have that either. The problem is that the term 'terrorist' is never used in a positive way. So it is a pov term and should be avoided. Which brings me to what alternatives there are. 'Attacker' is an obvious one. Any other suggestions? DirkvdM 14:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

as a visitor from the RfC list, here's my 2 cents. i agree with dirk above, "terrorist" is too ill-defined & unevenly applied a term for an encyclopedia or reference publication. i would also use "attacker" or "hijacker." Appleby 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As one who has done the bulk of work on the actual individual biographies of the 19 over the past year, I must agree that "terrorist" is a laden term, and I have always sided with "hijacker". That said, max's claims about operative/agent/soldier are not logical, nor is his claim that Al Qu'ada had the backing of Afganistan government at the time (or one could argue he and Taliban were trained by cia if u wanna go down that route). for two reasons. Firstly, none of the hijackers had anything to do with the ruling Afghanistan government, none of them even ever met with government agents. They most certainly were not agents of the government, nor operatives, nor soldiers. They acted 'alone' with the guidance of their own group. (Al Qaeda was not even a term they used, it comes from a brief message that referred to "the base" (Al Qaeda, in Arabic), and the US legal need for a "named criminal organization" to prosecute bin Laden in absentia. As per the second point, none of the 19 had anything to do with the CIA's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war, and even bin Laden himself indirectly received funding, not training during that time. In short, I disagree with Mongo, but not nearly as much as I disagree with max. The term "hijacker" is the way to go. Sherurcij 10:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hijacker connotates that one or more persons seize an airplane and essentially kidnap all aboard and then force the pilots to take them somewhere at which point the kidnapped persons are either released freely, held for ransom and then released, held for ranson and then murdered or simply murdered. I have not known of a situation in which any previous hijacker or group thereof, not only seized an airplane and kidnapped it's occupants, but then took over the actual flying of the airplane themselves and then used the planes as missles, deliberately intending to inflict massive casualties on targets of opportunity. The 19 "hijackers" are far more than mere hijackers...they are terrorists and there is nothing loaded about the useage of this term to designate their actions by any stretch of the imagination....no other word more closely or accurately describes the their actions...terrorism. This article is about the events of 9/11, not the bombing of Cambodia, not Hiroshima, not the fire bombing of Dresden. If folks wish to label those actions as terroristic in those articles, then be my guest, but to call the actions of the 19 hijackers anything other than terroristic and them as terrorists is completely POV.--MONGO 11:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two different claims being made here:
  • The words terrorist and terrorism cannot be defined and therefore should not appear in any Wikipedia article.
  • The words can be defined and should therefore appear in Wikipedia articles. However, the men who seized four aircraft on 9/11, three of which reached their intended targets, and one of which was prevented by passengers from doing so, are not terrorists according to this (unstated) definition.
The words themselves (despite the reluctance of Reuters to use them) exist and have a common meaning in English and specifically as used by mainstream media and the United States government to refer to 9/11. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter is a cliche and not an argument. A person whose personal dictionary has a blank page where terrorist should appear is in a reality-denying bubble.
Both the victims and the organization that claimed responsibility for the attack acknowledge that non-combatants were killed to to attempt influence national policy and public opinion, i.e. terrorism. If this wasn't the intent, what was? A complaint against the quality of airline food? patsw 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
All political correctness aside, the UN does essentially support a definition of terrorism as delineated above in this thread. The actions of the 19 hijackers do indeed fit within the parameters of that definition. I won't sugar coat comparative analogies in which we all say that well, if the actions of the 19 hijackers is terrorisms, then so is the actions of the U.S. in Cambodia during the Vietnam War...as I mentioned, if that definition also fits U.S. actions, then it should be used in those articles. What we are discussing here are the actions of the 19 hijackers and the best fit in terms of a definition of their actions on 9/11 is terrorism.--MONGO 21:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

but that's exactly the problem, isn't it? good luck trying to add "terrorism" to articles on u.s. actions in the past. since that's not gonna happen, that means the word ends up being applied unevenly, in a POV way. no doubt 9/11 was terrorism in some sense, but other actions that are terrorism in the SAME sense do not get called terrorism. the word is fine in many contexts, but i think best practice for encyclopedias is to avoid such effectively POV descriptions. Appleby 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a point of view that the intention and action of the 19 was to kill civilians and strike at symbols of American (and the West's) power and prestige. Please understand how the Wikipedia works: one article at a time gets edited. If you have a problem with other actions in another article, discuss it there. A policy that would apply across all articles would be proposed and discussed elsewhere as well. patsw 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't mean just other wikipedia articles, i mean the word as is actually used. if "intention and action to kill civilians and strike at symbols of power and prestige" of another is "terrorism," then there's a whole lot of textbooks, history books, news articles, encyclopedias, etc. that need to be rewritten. until then, that's not what the word, in reality, is used to describe. Appleby 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw, your two arguments to move this discussion elsewhere are valid in theory but a bit lame in practise. You know that the US involvement in Vietnam will never get the label terrorism. So, however valid your argument, the result will be out of balance. And discussing general rules should in the end indeed be done in general sections, but there's nothing wrong with discussing them in particular instances and since this is the best known example of what is often labelled terrorism this talk page is as good as any. DirkvdM 10:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going oppose a changing of the word "terrorists" to "attackers" or something similar. This is despite still being in absolute disagreement with Max rspct's outrageous claims. I also still have absolutely no doubt that the 9/11 attackers were terrorists according to any real definition of the word. I believe it would be POV to not refer to these men as terrorists, and I further believe that each individual debate over the use of the word should be argued at each article's Talk page, as is meant to happen. Still, if there is a sitewide effort to avoid certain words, once again I won't oppose it. — Impi 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, the word terrorist is defined sufficiently for the United States government to create the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and to have people recognize what it means. Your argument is with the United States government on their usage of the word not with me as an editor.
DirkvdM, your speculation as to my knowledge of the eventual characterization the role of the United States in the Vietnam War in the Wikipedia is irrelevant. This article does not need "balance". There is no morally neutral "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" with respect to the 19 men who killed themselves and 2,967 others as if those 2,967 in some way deserved to die. patsw 00:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is privatized warfare. Governments traditionally have a monopoly on democide, so naturally becomes defensive when free enterprise encroaches on their domain. I do not advocate violence in any form. I become angry when I hear about "terrorist acts", just as I become angry when I hear about "collatoral damage". People are people, and they die the same, whether they are civilians or soldiers. Killing is inexcusable regardless of who is doing the killing. I would cast my vote here, in favor of using a more balanced term than "terrorist", but I recognize this isn't a democracy. At least we all have a voice here. Aaronwinborn 03:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


RfC: It's my opinion that the word terrorists should be used. User:Impi gave some very good reasons above. What the US has done or not done is irrelevant to whether the 9/11 attacks were committed by terrorists; whatever the goals of the 9/11 attackers, their actions and methods were terroristic in nature. In my opinion, to say that those who have committed acts of terror are not terrorists because of the country they attacked is blatantly POV.

Additionally, above that list of reasons not to use the word terrorism is a list of reasons for the use the word terrorism. I don't know how to put the link in here, but all you have to do is scroll up from the link provided. KathL 18:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents:And one note, above I believe the memo on bombing Al-Jazeera was mentioned. But it does not appear that the U.S. actually was going to bomb them and no credible news source is taking it seriously. No to move on, terrorist is a perfectly fine term, when used to describe someone who perpetrated an act of terrorism. I quote oure own article ""Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life." Those people were terrorists. It was a target against U.S. citizens not the Government. That said, hijacker is just as neutral of a term. Soldier is definetly not, as they represent no army and never had. Falphin 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Is this section for the Request For Comment posted November 28? Because it should have been so labled. Anyway... of course they were terrorists. Don't be silly. Couple points:
- Terrorist is not a pejorative. Hell, the old Russian SR, the Anarchists, etc. -- they were proud to be called terrorists. Many many people feel that terrorism is a valid tactic if it's for a good cause and you don't have the resources for other approaches. These guys were terrorists, and they were good terrorist -- they were effective and successful. Why take that away from them?
- Terror was these guy's objective. They didn't want to bring down the towers for material reasons, to make the US be out the cost of replacing the towers etc. They didn't do it for revenge, or for thrills, or by mistake, or whatever. Fomenting fear and terror was the point. Terrorist: "Terror" and "-ist", one who uses, makes, or does. Like, say, "Guitarist" or "Copyist" or whatever. ("-ist" can also mean "one who believes in" as in "Communist" etc., but that not what it means in terrorist, in this case anyway.) Copyist = one who makes copies. Terrorist = one who makes terror. It's just simple English word formation.Herostratus 09:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well of course they should be called "terrorists". They even admitted and are proud to do it, the bastards. According to Merriam-Webster: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" [92]. Henceforth, they should be called it becuase they qualify as the definition of "terrorist". --KILO-LIMA 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

bin Laden's point of view on bin Laden and the September 11, 2001 attacks

The UK Daily Telegraph reported on 11 November 2001 [93]

Osama bin Laden has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.

I hope this answers the question for everyone on the usage of terrorist in the article. patsw 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual quote was, "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically." And yes, Patrick, that does answer the question once and for all. If avenging the killing of one's people makes someone a terrorist, that makes me, you, and probably everyone else here a terrorist. --Peter McConaughey 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter, I think he was adding that to demonstrate that Osama called himself a terrorist and as you added that he made the statement as a defense of his actions believing that the U.S. had killed his people and he was therefore justified with sanctioning or at least being in agreement with the actions of the 19 hijackers. I am interested in knowing who the people Osama feels were killed in the same indiscrimate fashion as his sanctioned attacks. Perhaps, based on that thought process of his, he should have been more concerned about striking at Tel Aviv, not NYC and Washington. As far as whether Osama's definition is the one to abide by in terms of neutrality, nothing could be further from reality. I could care less what he calls himself or what misguided notion he thinks justifies his means. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [94] has several definitions that there is some concensus on as far as what defines terrorism. They equate terrorism as peacetime equivalent of war crime and a concensus on what defines a war crime is less shady and includes deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners. The definition by the European Union, (albeit not one in full agreement and resulting in a "Chairman's Statement") nevertheless, stated in their draft proposal that Terrorist offences can be defined as offences intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country." [95]
In other words, the actions (not that they in any way pertain directly to this article) such as the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Cambodia and related issues all happened in times of war and if anything fall under the definition of war crime, not terrorism. That is the distinction.--MONGO 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
His (OBL's) rhetoric usually holds that any Muslim killed by the west, outside of the codes of Islam (negating the EU, UN, Geneva Conventions, etc.), is a killing which should be avenged. Thus, deaths resulting from numerous wars, sanctions, civillian rules, and numerous nations, are on his 'hit list', so to speak... the USA for their Iraq sanctions (an estimated 500,000 civillians dead) and support of Israel (several thousands of civillians dead, millions displaced), as well as USA support of brutal governments of muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, (etc.), he hates Russia for killing Chechens and Afghanis, he holds most of the nations of Europe responsible for the crusades (millions of civillians dead) etc. His chain of reasoning seems to be that since democracies endorse their leaders (through a vote), nobody in a democracy is a "non-combatant" civillian.
As far as whether or not he would justify his actions as war crimes (vs. terrorism), he declared war on the US a long time ago (The US government chooses not to recognize his declaration).
If such kind of "justice" (in the form of civillian deaths) is to be classified as terrorism is a bit of a semantic game, which is why there is no universally agreed-upon definition. The UN has a hard time defining it, as does the EU, and even the US, depending on the political forces and stakeholders in the argument.
See the works by Bruce Lawrence, Randy Hamud, and others, for more detail on his (OBL) thoughts and rhetoric. Ronabop 10:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Osama represented no state entity so that is partially why the U.S. didn't declare war (something it has only officially done a few times anyway) on him. I remind you the sanctions on Iraq were UN imposed so Osama is obviously distorted there. The hatred of the U.S. is primarily due to U.S. support of Israel and the presence of Americans (and westerners in general) in Saudi Arabia, et al. This article discusses the 9/11 attacks and the argument is whether they are the "hijackers" are terrorists or not. I say that the UN has, as shown on the pages I linked, at least a rough statement that defines terrorism...if they didn't have that they would have said so. The statement by the UN isn't playing on semantics as you suggest. They quote, as a basis of a position, that terrorism is the peacetime equivalent of war crime and a concensus on what defines a war crime is less shady and includes deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners. The 9/11 hijackers did by their actions, a peacetime war crime, as we were not AT WAR with anyone aside from enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq, which was UN sanctioned, and our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia to protect, no less, Muslims. If there ever was in recent history a better example of what defines an act of terror than the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, then it would be most enlightening.--MONGO 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre

I have a photo of a "Demonic Creature" seen in the smoke and derbis when one of the planes hit the WTC. This was either a UPI or AP photo. A LOT of people reported spotting the bizarre formation. A lot of the print media carried this photo.Martial Law 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article needs a section with the title Hoaxes for those Photoshopped images. patsw 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this used to be talked about under Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, if memory serves, that page was merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. This pissed off the people who believe in "alternate" theories about 9/11 because suddenly their theories were listed back to back with "smoke demons" and that photoshopped guy on the rooftop, so slowly they were removed. I'm not sure where the smoke demon belongs (maybe not in wikipedia at all) but if you do add it I would not put it on the main 9/11 page because it's pretty absurd. --Quasipalm 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Find on Jeff Rense's Homepage and Archives material relating to 9-11 Conspiracies, 9-11 itself.Martial Law 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion for resolving the {{POV-section}} tags

A {{POV-section}} tag is added to an article when the disputed content of a section is biased toward only one side of the argument. Since most of our editors are western-influenced, international articles tend to have a western bent. In the case of this September 11, 2001 attacks article, the description of Al-Qaeda is based almost entirely on the propaganda used for a war against it. Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia. We will marvel at how our blind hatred shaped our definitions and led us to do really stupid things. We will wonder why we had to repeat history again through the use of another evil ism.

Speaking of isms, one of the best ways of avoiding the appearance of McCarthyism in the eyes of our children and future generations is to write articles from a neutral point of view. As a very minimum, we need to avoid words that betray righteous indignation. For more on this, see Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism. --Peter McConaughey 22:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide an English language link to Al-Qaeda's description of itself. patsw 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I found these quotes by Osama bin Laden over at the terrorism article: The Importance of Objectively Defining Terrorism. Also there is apparently an edit summary by an al Qaeda member in the history of this article. --Peter McConaughey 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Twenty years from now, we will look back and realize that our characterization of Al-Qaeda is as silly as our 1960s characterization of Russia."...you must be kidding, of course! I wonder if in the 1960's we were looking back on the Nazi's and saying, gee, labelling them as mass murderers sure was silly! I sure am glad, looking back now 60 years ago, that our "blind hatred" helped the allies defeat the totalitarian dictatorships of the 1930-40's. It sure is good we were silly or else we would all be goosestepping around and looking for a few good Jews to lynch. Gee, I sure wish I could let go of my "silly" notion that life in Communist Russia was lousy and that they are better off as a democracy. I guess it sure is facsist to label the actions of the 19 hijackers as terrorism!Wikipedia words to avoid:Terrorism only discusses the why and why not for using the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism"...it doesn't say it cannot be used. If the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 doesn't fit the the definition of terrorism, then nothing does. For better or for worse and whether some like it or not, there is no finer example of terrorism than the events on September 11, 2001. They were much more than hijackers quite obviously...the term attackers is simply not descriptive enough...they don't fit into the label of soldiers, except to their fellow Al-Queda members.--MONGO 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I would call them soldiers either. Both "terrorist" and "soldier" apply personal bias about their legitimacy. I would prefer a more impotent term like "combatant," but I'm open to anything that promotes a more NPOV article. The current page with strong subjective bias words like "terrorist" isn't going to fly. --Peter McConaughey 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with the use of "operatives". -max rspct 17:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of less pejorative synonyms. --Peter McConaughey 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • collaborator
  • conspirator
  • dissident
  • freedom fighter
  • iconoclast
  • incendiary
  • insubordinate
  • insurgent
  • insurrectionary
  • insurrectionist
  • rebel
  • recreant
  • renegade
  • resistance fighter
  • schismatic
  • subverter
Begin at the beginning with defining what the other side of the argument is, where and by whom is it advocated before we try to obtain a consensus on how to edit the article.
The victims of the attack and the perpetrators of the attack use the word terrorism and terrorist to describe the September 11, 2001 attacks as already verified and cited. patsw 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
They want to dance around the application of the word here for purposes of being less descriptive and less encyclopedic because it doesn't fit their bias. No other word besides terrorist singularily fits the vulgarity of the actions of the perpetrators of 9/11 better. The words cited above are deliberately misleading and indicate that they wish to be limp wristed in assigning blame for who is responsible and for properly attributing just how sick the actions of the 9/11 terrorists were. Appears to be a strong anti-American and radical left viewpoint to not call a terrorist a terrorist in this situation. It's pure Ward Churchillism and or Noam Chomskyism if I ever saw it.--MONGO 20:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean, MONGO. For me, saying "evil Karl Rove" without the evil is deliberately misleading and indicates that some people wish to be limp wristed in assigning blame for who is responsible and for properly attributing just how sick we find the actions of the Plame affair, the 2000 Election and the 2003 State of the Union Address ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") Yet, regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to someone, doing so simply is not encyclopedic. --Peter McConaughey 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the events of 9/11, not Karl Rove or your opinion on the 2000 elections. I would consider the actions of the 19 hijackers to be evil...do we agree on that?--MONGO 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but we can't put that in the article. Calling our enemy "the evil bin Laden" would be almost as unencyclopedic as calling him "the terrorist bin Laden." --Peter McConaughey 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter, what part of "we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents" are you having difficulty understanding? patsw 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The part where you took that quote out of context? --Peter McConaughey 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the context in which the meaning is changed to "we are not terrorists. No, we do not kill their innocents"? patsw 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith, Patrick, but your insistence on grabbing the last three words of that sentence is making it hard for me to do so. The entire quote is, "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."

Please remember we're trying to make Wikipedia a reliable resource of information. That means our articles cannot be argumentative. They cannot use pejorative terms to describe people. When the article calls someone a "terrorist," it makes the whole page look tabloid. Some very accurate and precisely cited information in that article is debased when you add pejorative and hotly-disputed descriptive terms like "terrorist." --Peter McConaughey 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are Osama's people?...what state does he represent?...I mean, nobody wanted him around so he ended up in Afghanistan where his subversive ideals were welcome under the Taliban. Are you suggesting that Osama thinks that the U.S. deliberately planned, as a course of action, the premeditated and ruthless killing of innocents, thinking that it was legal religiously and logically? Regardless of his feeling of a need for retribution, he clearly states that this is indeed what he is doing, and that he accepts the definition of terrorist as a descriptive term for him and his followers if that is what best describes his actions in response to his claim that the U.S. killed "his" people. I consider that to be an admittance of being a terrorist.--MONGO 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks excessive to have two POV section flags within the same section. Durova 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

k --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Please remember we're trying to make Wikipedia a verifiable resource of information. There is an accepted meaning of the word "terrorism" and bin Laden seems to know it and use its meaning in the accurate sense. The word is being used all over the world and not merely in "tabloid". It appears in media accounts, books, testimony, government reports -- in fact, everywhere where terrorism is discussed you will find the word, including elsewhere in the Wikipedia, and in places with far greater fact-checking and standards than are performed here. Peter, you can't just wave your hand and say "pejorative" and "hotly-disputed" when it comes to the description of Al-Qaeda as terrorist -- it's mainstream, it's common, it's accurate. What is the problem with pejorative as applied to the 19 terrorists? Do or don't the terrorists deserve the contempt of the entire world which is included in the meaning of pejorative?
Let's even assume the very unlikely event that there is a consensus of editors to remove terrorism from the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Wikipedia critics would then just cite this article as evidence of the lack of reality and extreme bias in its editing.
If Al-Qaeda's point of view is incompletely or inaccurately being presented in the article, please add it to the article. The point of view of the West in responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be distorted, truncated, or made inaccurate by avoiding the words terrorist and terrorism. patsw 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
If the west calls Al-Qaeda a group of terrorists, then we should say that the west calls Al-Qaeda a group of terrorists. Nobody has a problem with citing sources, but authorship of the derision is not being cited and is highly controversial. The article is making a statement of fact about a Al-Qaeda being terrorists. Since the term "terrorist" is disparaging, belittling, and not equally applied as per definition, an NPOV article cannot claim it as fact. The narrative voice of the article must remain NPOV in order for Wikipedia to have any credibility.
The only way to associate the word "terrorist" with Al-Qaeda without destroying the integrity of the article is to cite, in the article, the most authoritative and neutral source making that claim. Tell me your most reputable source claiming that Al-Qaeda is terrorist. Let's put that in the article and remove the NPOV tags. --Peter McConaughey 14:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • PBS Frontline repeatedly refers to Al Queda as terrorists [96]
    Wikipedia article on Al-Qaeda...second paragraph it clearly states that many people regard Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization...it doesn't say that many people don't regard it as terrorist. [97]
    Time Magazine online with article titled "Hate Club: Al-Qaeda's Web of Terror" [98]
    Frontpagemag.com: "the terrorist organization al-Qaeda" [99]
    CDI Terrorism Project: [100]
    Infoplease, "Considered the world's foremost terrorist" [101]
    CNN archive of bin Laden praising attacks and responsibility for them caught on videotape [102]
    I can dig up more when I have time if you need.--MONGO 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


We only need one to solve the POV issue. Give me your most authoratative source and we'll change the article to say that "X says that Al-Qaeda is terrorist." X doesn't speak for everyone, certainly not Al-Qaeda, so the article becomes factual again. --Peter McConaughey 15:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
An alternative would be to not try to define Al-Qaeda in this article. Instead to link to Al-Qaeda and let that article define it. --Peter McConaughey 15:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think thousands of spit-takes happened all over the world as people read your demand that there's a burden of proof which has not been met yet to describe Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as terrorist [103].
And you've missed the framework of the discussion: if there is a point of view issue, then it is is the West's point of view and will be included in the article -- the point of view that it's bad to fly jet airliners into the two towers of the World Trade Center and kill nearly 3,000 human beings doing so.
If Peter or anyone else desires to present Al-Qaeda's point of view on the September 11, 2001 attacks, then go for it. patsw 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As a United States war veteran I don't try to edit this article. I will comment though that the terms of debate are far less skewed toward the West than some editors claim. The implicit assumption behind Osama bin Laden's statement about terrorism is that his group was retaliating in kind for United States actions. In fact the United States military goes to great lengths to respect civilians of all nations. During my two deployments our volunteers assisted charitable efforts in every country we visited. We saved 113 lives off the coast of Guatemala and Panama, barely sleeping for a week as we rescued them, and even our own nation's press ignored the accomplishment. The mistakes of a few people get endless coverage. I make no excuses for Abu Ghraib. Those soldiers belong in jail and I deplore them. Their actions stained the uniform I wore. There seems to be a concerted effort by some partisans to confuse the concept of terrorism with regular military action. Let me assure you, I carried a rifle many times and never harmed an innocent civilian. That would have been the antithesis of our mission. Durova 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the desire to serve our country. Service members want to be involved in conventional warfare, where we defend our homes, our families, and the "United States Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic." We want to believe that the threat will never be domestic, but there is a reason why all service members and high-ranking officials in our government must take the oath in the above quote, and that's because the threat to our constitution from within is very great and very possible, and in this case, it is very real. When you hear that members of our Congress "need to update" parts of our Bill of Rights, there is no other way to take that. It is a direct attack on our United States Constitution, something millions of us have sworn to protect with our lives and sacred honor.
When the same enemies of our Constitution tell us to trust them when they ask to borrow two trillion dollars to wage a pre-emptive war without any evidence, and it turns out that they were lying, we have to ask ourselves what their true motivations were. Having eliminated any possibility that our intensions in Iraq have to do with reducing their military threat toward us, we are left with one answer: we are there to enforce compliance through fear of retaliation. What kind of retaliation? A few bombs here and there? No, I'm talking about mass extermination. The U.N. estimates that 1.8 million people died as a direct result of our sanctions in Iraq during the '90s. But they deserved it, right? They didn't comply with our demands. Whether or not a half-million Iraqi children deserved to die from malnutrition and preventable disease as a direct result of our sanctions, the fact remains that we used systems of terror as a means of intimidation and coercion. I don't know what definition of terrorism you have, but our actions in the Middle East fit squarely into mine, with no ambiguity.
Still, I don't go over to the President Bush article and call him a terrorist because that would be my POV, just as surely as it is POV when used by some of the editors here. --Peter McConaughey 20:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That, again, has nothing to do with whether the hijackers of the planes are terrorists or not. Perhaps the term terrorist is deplorable because Bush tosses it around like so much chicken feed which he does, I'm sure, for deliberate reasons. Regardless, the term is the most accurate description to describe the actions of the 19 hijackers. As far as the rest of your argument, UN resolution 1441 clearly stated that if Saddam and the Baathist regime didn't fully comply with unfettered access for the UN weapons inspectors that there would be "serious consequences". This resolution passed the security council without opposition and was signed by even France and Germany. We had already done all that could be done aside from military intervention to get Saddam to comply...so what did France and Germany do when it came time to enforce those serious consequences? They balked, and then failed to stand behind their own words. Nevertheless, did Bush then actually move unilaterally...no, he went to the UN and gave a speech, as did Powell and explained the situation. Bush then asked congress to approve military action in Iraq...the likes of John Kerry and Hilliary Clinton then signed the authorization to use force in Iraq...Bush then did so and by doing so, he untook the intervention with the written support of Clinton and Kerry. He didn't act unilaterally...he has been authorized by Congress and yet, he is the one "to blame".--MONGO 21:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I never said that Bush was "to blame." I said that he, by definition, is a "terrorist." It seems that, in your mind, the two terms mean the same thing, which proves my point that "terrorist" is pejorative. Using the term proves your bias, which is exactly why an encyclopedia article cannot use the term. --Peter McConaughey 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I provided you with substantive sources in which Al-Qaeda and the hijackers have been called terrorists. Can you provide one substantive source in which Bush is a referred to as a terrorist? If Osama is captured alive, do you think he will face a trial...and if Bush is a terrorist, why is he not under any formally recognized indictment?--MONGO 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter, I find it strange that your evidence for Bush fitting your definition of a terrorist includes the sanctions of Iraq during the 1990's after one considers that he wasn't the president at the time, nor was he in a position to do anything about the sanctions. Your argument generally fails to clarify who you deem responsible for what; in cases where you do provide evidence, I find your points far from compelling considering that your main focus, U.S. sanctions on Iraq, are both irrelevant to Bush's presidency and internationally considered to be conventional diplomacy.
The fact that you fail to differentiate between indirect diplomatic pressure by a sovereign nation and the atrocity of directly murdering thousands of civilians with extreme force denies you all credibility. Whitty 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
My evidence of the sanctions proves that I am a terrorist, because I am an American citizen and I allowed my representatives to murder a half million children as a method of coercion. Bush is an American citizen too. --Peter McConaughey 04:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, Really you strain credibility! Why isn't President Bush under any formally recognized indictment? What world do you live in? It seems as if you have a puritanical and childlike understanding of power. Simply: President Bush is not under any indictment for war-crimes etc... because he is the President of the richest and most militarily powerful nation in the World. Sheeesh.

Introduction; Neutrality???

I noticed that the Introduction was tagged as being not neutral. I read it several times and I could not find anyting that was not neutral. It simply states the facts. This group reported this and this group reported this ect. It has no bias to it. Should this be removed or does someone else have any comments? Or is that header for the entire article? Shark Fin 101 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)+

People started to turn this into a discussion board on world politics and put the United States on trial rather than discuss how to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Give them a little more time to settle down. patsw 03:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles don't call people "terrorists," Shark Fin, and we are editing an encyclopedia. (See also Wikipedia:Words to avoid:Terrorist) --Peter McConaughey 03:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda "many people regard Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization"--MONGO 03:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to avoid:Terrorist "There appears to be consensus that the words terrorism and terrorist can (and should) be used where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. However, that agreement only extends insofar as the article makes it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the narrative voice of the article." 66.236.0.11 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I delineated 7 examples in the thread immediately preceeding this one.--MONGO 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to avoid includes some helpful suggestions. Be sure to review the edit history and the talk page. Tom Harrison (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter made a good point. This is a encyclopedia and this encyclopedia article simply states what a group said. It is not biased in any way. It reports the facts. And that is what a article should do. That is why it should be removed. Shark Fin 101 21:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission Report makes a case for Al Qaeda members being "Terrorist Entrepreneurs" with statements like "No one exemplifies the model of the terrorist entrepreneur more clearly than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," but the authors of the report are smart enough to realize the difference between making a case for something and assuming a controversial and disparaging title for someone, even our enemy. The authors did not shove their conclusions down the reader’s throat. They knew that aggressiveness toward the reader backfires. Instead they patently made their case while retaining credibility with statements like "We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report."
Using language like that promotes the idea that the 9/11 Commission presented its information in an unbiased manner. Consider what would have happened if, instead, the commission assumed pejorative titles for the enemy, "We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 miscreants and al Qaeda terrorists in our report." See how use of pejorative terms backfires? Instead of strengthening the argument that al Qaeda consists of terrorists, it makes the sentence lose credibility.
Our article on the 9/11 attacks is strong without the use of inherently pejorative terms, and weak with them. I don’t think the author who added the POV terms was trying to hurt the integrity of the article, but that is exactly what has happened. I believe that an article as important as this should be written with as strong of language as possible, not some grade school name-calling. --Peter McConaughey 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What the Wikipedia calls the "9/11 Commission Report" the Commission itself formally calls "The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States". Please petition them to change the title and text of their report characterizing it as terrorism, not me.
For the United States, and arguably a consensus of the world possibly excluding some Muslim states, it is that the September 11, 2001 attacks were terrorism. It is a cited point of view with named adherents accurately described.
Al Qaeda itself calls it terrorism. Since the United States resists the restablishment of the Caliphate and the embrace of the entire world of Islam, this justifies terrorism against the United States. It's their point of view. They killed nearly 3,000, they are proud of it, and not disparaged by it in their public statements.
For those who deny that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were terrorism: (1) describe the point of view, (2) name its adherents, and (3) cite it from Internet or published source then add the text to the article to achieve a neutral point of view. It should be that simple. patsw 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When this article was a Featured Article [104] it clearly had the term terrorist in the opening papagraph [105]...so if that was good enough to be a featured article then, why should things be different now? Revisionist history.--MONGO 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
If this were your personal web page, you could call people anything you want, but this is an encyclopedia that represents all of us. In reporting things in an NPOV, you can't call people derogatory names. It puts a biased spin on the article and makes all of Wikipedia look bad. Is there any reason for this project to exist if we can't even meet the minimum standards of Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's? --Peter McConaughey 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Britannica (terrorism): [106], and September 11 attacks: [107].--MONGO 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The attacks are so widely acknowledged as terrorism that there is nothing wrong with stating it as a fact. I say we remove the NPOV tag. Rhobite 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
LMAO, so acknowledgement of POV makes it NPOV? --Peter McConaughey 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Your statement that the attackers should not be called terrorists is akin to a statement that we shouldn't report that the moon landing happened. Yes, some people hold this view. No, these people don't deserve much screen space in Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter, why was the term "militant" less POV than "terrorist"?--MONGO 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"Militant" is not inherently pejorative. If we wanted to put someone down, we wouldn't say, "You are a militant." The term "militant" is not a synonym for "bad guy." It has an objective definition that is equally applied to both sides of an armed conflict.
"Terrorist," on the other hand, is used by "victim societies" in reference only to the enemy. Regardless of how closely he fits the definition, a victim will never refer to himself as a "terrorist." In making ourselves victims, we give power to our victimizers. I don't want to give bin Laden power over my life, so I forgo using a pejorative term to describe him. --Peter McConaughey 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, Peter, and reverted to it.
The issue here is that the USA calls Al-Qaeda "terrorists". So we can say "Al-Qaeda is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US government". What we cannot do is ourselves call them that, because that is to judge the US is right and those who think otherwise are wrong. Wikipedia tries to avoid terms that imply a preferred view. FT2 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
To call them anything other than the terorists that they clearly were is not neutral, it's another point of view; one implying moral equivilence. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. 9/11 being an act of "terrorism" is an absolute truth, so it doesn't matter that there was no coercion associated with the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't matter that the Pentagon and the hub of globalization were the two biggest military targets in the United States. It doesn't matter that bin Laden said his motivation for attacking them was the same as for attacking the USS Cole, a military objective. It doesn't matter that the term has no agreed upon meaning, that it is pejorative, or how many people outside of the United States disagree with you. Our fuhrer has declared that 9/11 is an act of "terrorism," so it must be an absolute truth. The only problem is that we can't seem to find any definition for terrorism that includes 9/11 and doesn't make it sound like we are even bigger terrorists. --Peter McConaughey 01:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of other sources, some much more reputable then Wikipedia, that have no qualms about calling the 19 hijackers terrorists or the events of 9/11 as acts of terrorism. I have clearly pointed these out to you. It is most definitely common useage, widely used by numerous media and official reports on the subject, many of them not even of U.S,. origin. The stand you make is one that is definitively in the minority. If you want to go into related articles on American actions and call those actions terrorism, then please do so.--MONGO 02:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. FT2 02:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter is answering an argument I have not made. I'll say it again: To call them anything but terrorists is not neutral, it's just a different point of view. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Some people want to call al-Qaeda "freedom fighters," in order to have a positive spin. Others want to call them "terrorists," in order to have a negative spin. An encyclopedia is supposed to have no spin. We need to use a word that does not imply something positive or negative, same as any other reputable resource. --Peter McConaughey 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said, referring to them as anything other than terrorists is not descriptive enough for this article. If you want to inject terrorism into other articles (or even this one) that American actions are also terroristic, the please do so. I don't argue that the U.S. Government is not guilty of some heineous crimes, but we are talking about 9/11 and the actions of the hijackers. I would say that the number of those that referred to the 9/11 terrorists as freedom fighters is vastly outnumbered by those that refered to them as terrorists in this English version of Wikipedia.--MONGO 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If there are people who have the point of view that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists -- Describe their point of view. Identify them. Cite where this point of view appears (Internet, book, magazine article) The United States government identified the 19 as terrorists and the offical report has been cited here several times. It's getting tedious to see this characterized as spin and not the terrible reality of the intentional death of nearly 3,000 human beings. patsw 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps some day we will allow the U.S. government to define our terms for us, but as of today, Wikipedia is still a global resource. --Peter McConaughey 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic Aftermath

I’ve restored the earlier version of this. It is not POV to say “The economic health of Downtown Manhattan, which by itself is the third-largest business district in the United States (after Midtown Manhattan and the Chicago Loop), has been seriously imperiled by the attacks.” According to Bloomberg.com [108], “Lower Manhattan's economic future is riding on [redevelopment], New York Governor George Pataki and city business leaders have said.” If the future of something is riding on an event that hasn’t happened yet, it is reasonable to call that future “seriously imperiled.”

On the other hand, “created a unique challenge to” is POV, PR-speak nonsense. If a man is injured in a car accident and in critical condition, would any doctor say the accident "created a unique challenge to his health?" People would look at him like he was a moron. Nobody speaks in those kinds of tortured euphemisms except PR flacks and politicians. ~Sylvain 12/7/05

The wording "seriously imperiled" is itself a POV. In 2001, for a few months, it may have even been accurate. It no longer is.
The aftermath of the attacks did create a unique challenge. It is not nonsense. To work a bit with your example, a person afflicted with a rare disease or condition does represent a unique challenge to the doctor. The doctor in this case would be the government, workers, and residents of area affected by the attacks and the patient is the geographical area, the target of redevelopment.
The attacks are over and any inhibition of the on-going process of redevelopment of lower Manhattan is a political problem not directly tied to the attacks. My text is restored. For balance (to Bloomberg's and Pataki's optimism), one might want to identify a pessmistic point of view (for example "lower Manhattan will never recover"), who adheres to this point of view and cite it. patsw 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Your argument does not hold. It is clear that the aftermath of the attacks is what is being referred to, not that the planes themselves physically endangered the economic health of lower Manhattan in the moment of impact alone. I suppose we could say "the attacks and their aftermath . . . " although in my opinion that is belaboring the obvious.
The point is, I already identified a the "point of view" that thinks Lower Manhattan's economic health remains imperiled - it's governor Pataki and the city's business leaders. They say that it is "riding" on the successful redevelopment of the world trade center site. It doesn't matter that politics are the reason the redevelopment process is "inhibited", as you say. The 9/11 attacks (and their aftermath of course) are the reason the redevelopment is necessary in the first place. 1) By the governor's own admission, Lower Manhattan is serious trouble if the redevelopment necessitated by the attacks doesn't suceed. 2) Just this month, the local chapter of the American Planners Association released a statment saying the redevelopment was "sad" and "in disarray." In other words, according to the Pataki and the APA, Lower Manhattan is still in serious trouble.
For a discussion of this, see http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20040906/200/1102. Gotham Gazette is a respected urban planning website, and the article is a year old but the situation it describes hasn't changed. I've further modified the text.~Sylvain 12/9/05
I'm not making an argument, I'm describing the Bloomberg-Pataki point of view of "aftermath-as-challenge".
First, let's pick a more descriptive word than "imperiled". If I interpret you directly the "peril" is political in nature, caused by political leaders who can't break the logjam by agreeing upon the priorities for redevelopment.
I will look for a article closer to the present than September 2004 and summarize the pessimisitic point of view. It shouldn't be too hard to find pessimists or at least people who believe that the Lower Manhattan of 2001 cannot or should not be reconstituted and therefore doomed. patsw 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I found some good articles and linked to them. The "challenge" wording has been dropped and I will let the facts speak for themselves. patsw 02:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm very pleased with your latest changes--I think this is the best version yet by far. Kudos.~Sylvain 12/10/05

individual terrorists

I am surprised not to see them all listed. Perhaps I missed it as the document is quite long. Specificly I am looking for the education level of the terrorists and where they where educated (in the USA??). --69.37.131.232 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

For info on one that holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard, just google "worst president ever." --Peter McConaughey 22:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you please keep the snarky anti-Bush remarks off this page and focus on the article? If you're just interested in taking pointless potshots at the Bush administration, may I suggest another site? Rhobite 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No thanks. I've been Republican all my life.
Perhaps if you used a more specific term than "terrorists," we would know what you're talking about. When you say "terrorists," are you talking about American terrorists, Israeli terrorists, Syrian terrorists? In a world where violent intimidation passes for acceptable methods of war, you'll have to be a little more specific about which terrorists you mean. --Peter McConaughey 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The page says quite clearly Sunni Islamist terrorists;) Tom Harrison (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I was obviously responding to the question asked, not the the content of the article. Try to keep up. ;) --Peter McConaughey 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists?

  • Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
  • Identify them.
  • Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Please do this and move on. patsw 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In his New York Times bestseller, The President of Good and Evil, the eminent Jewish philosopher Peter Singer tries to make distinctions between the coercive actions of the United States government and the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Singer notes the use of intentions as the defining element in President George W. Bush’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly in November 2001: “In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn. Yet there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent.”

The United States unquestionably kills innocent people with its bombs and guns during its invasions. As the enforcement arm of U.N. sanctions against Iraq, the U.N. admits that U.S. intervention directly resulted in the deaths of over 800,000 children under the age of five. Since “murder of the innocent” certainly applies to the United States government, Singer observes that the critical term in Bush’s speech must be “deliberate.” By making intention an issue, Bush draws a black-and-white distinction between American murder of the innocent and Al-Qaeda murder of the innocent: bad guys intend to hurt the innocent while good guys only hurt the innocent because of collateral damage. Bush is essentially arguing that conventional warfare—-destruction and murder for the purpose of reducing an enemy’s physical ability to fight—-is morally acceptable, while terrorism—-destruction and murder for the purpose of coercion—-is morally reprehensible.

Singer then quotes Osama bin Laden in an October 2001 interview with Al Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni. bin Laden said that the men who carried out the attack “intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.” About the World Trade Center towers, bin Laden said, “The towers are an economic power and not a children’s school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world.” By bin Laden’s own mouth, the intention of the September 11, 2001 attack was a conventional warfare strike against the biggest military and economic threats to his countrymen. Since no coercion has been associated with the attack, it becomes hard to create a definition of terrorism that allows for the 2001 attacks against the United States mainland. Harder still would be the creation of a definition that also holds the United States government innocent for enforcing U.N. sanctions to coerce the Iraqi sovereign government by murdering over a million innocent Iraqi civilians. Singer says, “If we allow Bush to justify acts that he knew would kill innocents by saying that killing innocents was not his intention, then we should be aware that others, too, can use the same distinction.”

Significant parts of the Middle East, far East, Islamic nations, as well as people not aligned to US politics, I believe, have not called these people "terrorists". Wikipedia reports their view and considers it meaningful, too.
But in the meantime try this. It's a quote by an authoritative expert on radical Islam, Jason Burke:
"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or mainmed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)
FT2 06:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Then CNN, Time magazine, The U.S. Government, Britannica, infoplease and virtually everyone else must be wrong and biased.--MONGO 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's put this thing to rest. I've added {{Fact}} tags where a source needs to be cited. You can use the term "terrorist" to describe someone if you cite who said it, but citing yourself, as is implied without a source, just isn't good enough. I realize that many of us want to think of ourselves as the most definitive source of information, but that's just all in our heads. In a real encyclopedia, we have to cite someone more authoritative than ourselves. --Peter McConaughey 06:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Deal.--MONGO 08:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You aren't getting it yet. Even if there were 100 authorities who call them "terrorists", Wikipedia itself will not say they were if it may be perceived as judgemental. It's not a matter of "So I suppose all these people are wrong". They have their standards for how they describe things, we have ours. Ours is WP:NPOV, and here, thats the authority on this subject. Not the US government, not Britannica and not anyone else. If you think about it, every source can contain bias. NPOV states that we don't label X as a terrorist. We can say "described by the US govt" as terrorists". We can say "described by britannica as terrorists". We cannot say categorically as a fact, that they are considered by Wikipedia terrorists. That is what NPOV says, and I understand you want to use a term that's widely heard in the West, and others may want to use other terms widely heard in other groups, *that* is why NPOV says what it does. I'm sorry, but as its policy and not personal choice, it needs to be reverted in its present form. I will do what I can to keep some sense of what's said, such as "widely described as a terrorist organisation" with citations. Thats the best Wikipedia policy allows. FT2 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are completely incorrect...you are going against the consensus of the article as it appeared when it was a featured article. The actions of the hijackers clearly fits the definition of terrorism as clearly delineated by virtually every available source. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and this term is appropriate to describe the actions of the terrorists that hijacked the planes. I provided mainstream media sources that all repeatedly use the term terrorist and or terrorism when describing the actions of the hijackers. By not calling terrorists by that mainstream definition, then WE here at Wikipedia only look like we are trying to be coy, not that we are maintaining some effort to be neutral. I say that you calling them militants is not neutral...it is POV.--MONGO 13:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to what you say, Wikipedia NPOV standard is not any different in spirit from the standards of objectivity used by countless other sources. We can look to other sources for guidance on these matters. "Terrorist" is clearly acceptable. "Militant" is also acceptable, but is not the preferred description. Mirror Vax 14:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Britannica does not call anyone a "terrorist." Oxford English Dictionary does not call anyone a "terrorist." Webster's Dictionary does not call anyone a "terrorist." In fact, no reputable resource in the world calls anyone a "terrorist." The term is pejorative and only serves to show the bias of the user. --Peter McConaughey 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Britannica certainly does call people terrorists (I just checked), as do reputable news services. You are spouting nonsense. By the way, can you have terrorism without terrorists? What euphemism would you use for a terrorist incident? Mirror Vax 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to give us an example of Britannica calling someone a "terrorist?" --Peter McConaughey 17:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you visit their web site and do a search? That's the least you can do before so confidently proclaiming a falsehood. Anyway, here is one example:
(copyrighted text follows)
Baader-Meinhof Gang
West German leftist terrorist group formed in 1968 and popularly named after two of its early leaders, Andreas Baader (1943–1977) and Ulrike Meinhof (1934–1976).
Red Army Faction The members initially supported themselves by bank robberies and engaged in terrorist bombings and arson, especially of West German and U.S. targets in West Germany. Baader, Meinhof, and 18 others were arrested in 1972; Meinhof eventually hanged herself, and Baader apparently also died a suicide. By the mid-1970s the group had turned to international terrorism; two members took part in the 1976 Palestinian airplane hijacking in the Entebbe incident. After the collapse of communism in East Germany (1989–90), it was discovered that East Germany's secret police had provided training and supplies to the gang. The group announced an end to its terrorist campaign in 1992. [...]
(end copyrighted text)
Mirror Vax 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Both the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Faction referred to themselves as terrorists. They both followed the strict definition of terrorism, "systematic use of terror for the purpose of coercion," and nobody has disputed that claim. As of 9/11, most people stopped referring to themselves as terrorists because President Bush associated the term with "evil-doers." If fact, our illustrious president is famous for using the terms interchangably.
Whether or not we adopt the definitions of a failed Texas cowboy, Wikipedia can't associate "terrorist" with 9/11. Given Bush's definition of "terrorist," as being synonymous with "evil-doer," the term is highly POV. Yet, if we take the strict definition of "terrorist," it simply doesn't apply to direct military attacks (Pentagon and World Trade Globalization Towers). --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
What euphemism would I rather use for a terrorist incident?
Sanctions seem to fit the general definition of "terrorism" perfectly. It must have been terrifying to watch a half-million children slowly dying. Their water purification, sewage treatment, and medical facilities were destroyed by bombs. We blockaded chlorine for water treatment and over-the-counter medicines to cure the resulting diseases, and we did it for intimidation and coercive purposes. What we did to Iraq was terrorism in its purest form. An attack against a military target like the Pentagon? That doesn't sound like a "terrorist incident" to me. --Peter McConaughey 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I provided the Britannica definition of 9/11 and it clearly stated that they were terrorist attacks...did you bother to read it? Furthermore...the sanctions were UN sanctions and were enforced by all member countries. Had Saddam not been so busy building palaces to his vanity with the oil for food monies that were supposed to go for food and medicine, there wouldn't have been such "starvation"...(or is that the term Saddam's government used to excuse the 6,000 mass graves they had filled with >500,000 people that the Baathist party murdered through aggressive war against two of it's neighboring states, executed due to political dissent or for cultural/religious differences, or maybe just for the heck of it). Iraq was such a paradise under Saddam. This article is about 9/11 and the actions of the hijackers so we need to stay on target with that.--MONGO 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You realize you've just given a perfect and flawless justification for editing the article on the USA to start "The United States is a country with a history of sponsoring state terrorism." The supporting citations would be UN, Human Rights and other credible bodies stating that its head of state was responsible for decisions that killed hundreds of thousands, the majority of them civilians, in the last 6 years alone, some under torture, whilst previous presidents undertook wars of aggression, regime destabilization, and funded arms races including the knowing sale of illegal weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not saying we should. But that's inevitably what your viewpoint flawlessly leads to. There are a few hundred million people giving just that view, and it appears on tens of millions of web pages. Once you say "Our words are right", you have a really hard job justifying why other people's chosen words aren't too, and that's why Wikipedia does not favor anyones descriptive words, as such, not yours, not mine, not Britannica's and not the Government of any country. Cite them, yes. Advocate them, no. FT2 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, please read that Britannica article on "terrorism."[109] It reports what a council said and what is written in a resolution. Both are fully cited as the ones using the term "terrorism." --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Same link as earlier, Peter. September 11 attacks: [110]--MONGO 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Close to getting it right

Peter comes close to getting it right with the word usage terrorist 'serves to show the bias of the user'. When you read 'bias of the user' to mean 'point of view', that is what the Wikipedia is about: describing points of view, identifying adherents and citing points of view -- in this one article on one thing and one thing alone: the September 11, 2001 attacks. The point of view of the United States is that these attacks on the United States were terrorist and I'm still waiting to learn who believes that these attacks on the United States were not terrorism. patsw 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the 9/11 attacks were "terrorism" in and of themselves. Terrorism involves some sort of coercion or intimidation, not a direct attack against a military target (Pentagon and World Trade Globalization Towers). President Bush associated coercion and intimidation with the attacks, but that makes him the fear-monger, not al-Qaeda. --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
NPOV policy requires that we not give undue weight to highly eccentric views. Mirror Vax 13:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither the WTC nor the White House or Capitol building (either one may have been the target of the plane that crashed in Shanksville) were military targets. Even though the Pentagon is a military center, the attack on it was by nonuniformed agents not acting on behalf of a government, so the attack can still be feasibly argued to have been terrorism. If you don't see how the 9/11 attacks were intimidating, then you're missing something very obvious. --Mr. Billion 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Any type of war is intimidating, but not necessarily coercive in nature. The violent reduction of the military capability of an opponent is an act of conventional warfare. --Peter McConaughey 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks much better now with regards to use of terrorism - especially the start. Thumbs-up -- max rspct leave a message 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

I just read an excerpt from a most definitive book on 9/11 that is coming out next month. The excerpt is in the new issue of Vanity Fair. It features pages of quotes from the most intimate people associated with al-Qaeda and 9/11. The article refers to the attackers as "Jihadists." I think that is an excellent term because it is informative without being POV. What do you think? --Peter McConaughey 03:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is too vague for our usage needs here.--MONGO 09:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
You think "jihadist" is more vague than "terrorist?" --Peter McConaughey 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No sir, I think you are deliberately vague and I for one am tired of you and a few likemind folks like yourself peddling your radical attempts to rewrite the glossary of the term terrorist to suit your POV. It is common knowledge that the actions of the terrorists who hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 are indeed almost universally referred to as terrorism. Your most recent edit in which you claim that the planes were "alledgedly" hijacked is absolutely preposterous and I am about to start considering your efforts here to be nothing more than vandalism. This game is about to end.[111]. I'm about done with those that wish to bring discredit to this effort with radical subversive nonsense such as what you continue to peddle.--MONGO 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Good lord. Thats a lot of intensely emotive words, but most of it is plain irrelevant to deciding the issue. The issue, as described above, remains the same: "X says Y". Wikipedia does not say Y. And Jimbo says NPOV is "paramount and non-negotiable". Thats really about all that matters here. FT2 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing neutral about your edits and they do not conform to NPOV by demanding the terrorists be called anything other than terrorists.--MONGO 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
MONGO, I'm sorry that you have lost your assumption of good faith in my intentions. I can assure you that I am here solely in an attempt to restore a neutral point of view to this article. If you were to realize how silly it looks to call people names on an encyclopedia page, I'm sure that you would remove the POV yourself. You are shooting yourself in the foot when you create bias in an article. It make the entire piece look bad, and furthers credibility concerns with Wikipedia. --Peter McConaughey 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Wrong...using terms such as that edit of yours did is just plain making this article a laughing stock of misinformation. I provided citations as you requested and even that is not good enough. If it is silly to call them terrorists, than it certainly is, by the manner in which you continuously toss in parallelisms to GWBush or American actions as likewise. If our credibility is at stake, it is due to the constant demand by a few late comers to alter the featured Article status quo of this page, and to go against the grain of concensus with the obvious mainstream view, as exhibited by virtually every major new media outlet, that indeed the actions of those that carried out the attacks, was one of terrorism. I also enjoy how the two of you work on the Words to avoid page and fill it with your POV and then go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point.--MONGO 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


And you of course have a DIFF to back up that libellous personal attack with do you, MONGO? A diff showing I've made a post that "go[es] into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point." ?
... No, I didn't think you did.
Did you even notice that terrorism was in WP:WTA before I edited that article? And almost in identical wording? [112]
... No, I didn't think you did that, either. FT2 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


It's a neat trick, isn't it? The country where I live, the United States of America, thought this trick to be such a problem that they separated the legislative branch from the executive branch and specifically disallowed any overlap. Through Supreme Court legislating, however, the most fundamental guarantees of the United States Constitution have been overturned. The result is terrorism and double-speak. The idea is to accuse your opponents of exactly what you are doing, but do it first. In this way, it looks like your opponents are being petty, and just copying your lead when they accuse you of it. Of course, that only works if you combine it with a lot of flag waving and speeches asserting that support of the fearless leader is the same as support of the homeland/fatherland. If you do a good enough job of raising the spirit of intolerance, your constituents will propel it as "truth" through their speech. You can always spot one of these muppets because they refuse to cite the sources of their "truth." For them, it simply exists, with no rhyme or reason behind it. --Peter McConaughey 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
....I think your rant button is stuck. Arkon 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It gets to the heart of the matter, but I agree that trying to cover the entire root problem in one paragraph is a little optimistic and would probably sound like a rant. --Peter McConaughey 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Religous commentary in External links

I believe we should have a section in the External links dedicated to religous commentary of the 9/11 attacks. The question of how do these events fit in with God is a question that many have and I believe it would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Religious_Commentary_on_Schiavo.2C_Disability_Issues --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any links in particular you think should be in there? --Mr. Billion 06:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with various religions response however I am familiar with this site from chabad which is from a Jewish perspective: Life Vs. Terror: a 9/11 Anthology http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=58785 --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article itself addresses anything about various religious responses. In general, external links should be relevant to the specific content of the article, and not go off on a tangent. And the number of external links in an article needs to be limited to a useful number (to the reader), and to only the most directly pertinent. Maybe religious responses can instead be covered in a sub-article "daughter"? --Aude 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite for recent edit

The recent edit includes the statement "Bin Laden categorically denied involvement in a 2001 statement, although the denial is widely disbelieved in the West." I think we will need a cite for this if it is to be included. Arkon 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Look further down at his 2001 statements under "responsibility":
  • "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation,"
  • "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States... I had no knowledge of these attacks..."
Thus it's already in the article and cited, that Bin Laden categorically denied involvement. (This may be true or untrue, but is factual that he said it). The disbelief is also appropriate as a balance to that, and is self evident in the Western press, popular opinion and US/UK government reactions. (Which may be accurate or inaccurate but is also factual they disbelieve it). FT2 09:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

External links removed

I have weeded out a few external links that are not so notable to be included:

  • 9-11 Quotations
  • MAHOPA.de - 'The world after September 11'
    • Personal essay.
  • Pictures 9 11, New York City
    • If anywhere, this might go in the photos subheading and not the main external links heading.
  • 9-11 Predictions and PHOTOS
    • Personal blog, not appropriate.
  • 9-11Heroes.us - '9-11 Heroes: Four years after: We remember the events and victims of September 11 2001: In Memory to all those who gave their lives on 9-11-2001'
    • Very few google backward links [113].

--Aude 12:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV push

I did the following revert [114] primarily due to the fact that the 9/11 report doesn't refer to Al Qaeda as Sunni islamists and that it is important to note that Osamas denial of the leadership of the attacks (as provided with citation) then must also have the statement that his denial is essentially not considered factual by the western world.--MONGO 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that the western world believes the 9/11 Commission Report. --Peter McConaughey 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You are...I support using sources that are outside of the federal opinion...you know, those sources I cited earlier...the ones that are from even relatively liberal medias--MONGO 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Since I'm conservative, that isn't very tempting. --Peter McConaughey 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? (once again, the previous section got off track)

  • Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
  • Identify them.
  • Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Please do this and move on. patsw 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think "militants" is more appropriate, but for now I've reworked the intro (which I think reads better anyway -- events, perpetrators, long term impact) and that way at least put the term "terrorists" into the "X says Y" format for now. FT2 23:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I applaud the attempt but unfortunately, the intro now uses the passive voice in an awkward manner. Passive voice is frequently used to write subjectless sentences... let's try not to use it. Rhobite 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone has said they were freedom-fighters or valiant soldiers or something else other than terrorists, I think it would be useful to say who and quote them. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Who holds the point of view that they are militants and not terrorists? Militant unqualified by the identity of who holds that point of view that the 19 are militants is not acceptable. patsw 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Have you read Arab and far-east press? They have a significant voice that Al-Qaeda are not "terrorists". If you doubt this, here is a thought-experiment to try: What do you think a hypothetical article titled "Islamic perspectives on the 9/11 attacks" and written predominantly by Middle and Far East contributors would describe Al-Qaeda as? FT2 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the English version of Wikipedia so the term terrorist as applied to the actions of the hijackers on 9/11 is in cadence with the vast majority of those people who are fluent in English. Every single other term is either a weasel word or incorrect to describe the actions of those terrorists.--MONGO 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats your current view. Now maybe answer (rather than overlook) the question I actually posed, rather than just restating it? Thanks. FT2 12:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, I thought I did answer your question...I would consider that the chances, based on human nature and the censorship of much of the Arab press, that it would be unlikly for them to not be defensive of the actions of the terrorists. In light of the fact that almost all mainstream media sources have referred to the 9/11 attacks as acts of terrorism and or the hijackers as terrorists, as clearly shown by my repeated links, demostrates adequately that our use of the terms here as applied to this situation is definitely within the bounds of NPOV.--MONGO 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
First, provide a cite and I will quote it at length, if not here then elsewhere.
Second, According to the official 9/11 Commission Report, nineteen men affiliated with Al-Qaeda, a loose network of radical Sunni Islamist terrorists, carried out the attack. Do you maintain that the report does not characterise them as terrorists? Tom Harrison (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
When you say "a loose network of radical Sunni Islamist terrorists," it sounds like Wikipedia is making that assertion, not the 9/11 report. --Peter McConaughey 03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly Tom. The report characterizes them. Wikipedia does not. That's why we use the "X says Y" style here. "THE REPORT calls them terrorists" is precisely what the article says, and should say. Thats what WP:NPOV says and what editors here have been explaining all this time....
As to your other concern, a weasel word is a word like "some people" or "most academics" without saying who or where to verify it. Thats not at stake here. FT2 12:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Given that, I don't understand your objection to saying, "According to the official 9/11 Commission Report the hijackers who carried out the attack were nineteen terrorists affiliated with the Al-Qaeda network of radical Sunni Islamists." Tom Harrison (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that we should state that they were terrorists according to the official 9/11 Commission Report. This cites the source and uses the "X says Y" style that FT2 mentioned. Carbonite | Talk 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission Report does not call al-Qaeda "radical Sunni Islamists." That little mini-definition was created out of thin air and asserted by this article, not the report. Wikipedia already has a full description of al-Qaeda in the al-Qaeda article. We don't need to make up mini-definitions. We can hyper-link to the real thing. --Peter McConaughey 15:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That they are sunni islamists is in the article already and I would imagine therefore factual. That Al-Qaeda is a radical islam organisation (as opposed to mainstream muslim organisation), is a term used by citable and credible authors. Hence that wording. FT2 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Using the X says Y style we have one big problem...that problem is magnitute. If we go by that philosophy, then we end up legitimately being able to insert every POV we can get from every available source, so long as we can cite it. There becomes no end to it...and we end up with jibberish. Is it really NPOV to cite sources for information that are of the absolute minority view and pass that off as mainstream? Of course not. It isn't even necessary to call the 9/11 terrorists anything other than that because virtually all major media sources, most governments of the world and most scholars adhere to this fact. It is nothing more than misleading than to apply the absolute minority view and try and pass that off as a NPOV.--MONGO 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up NPOV and relevance.
"Is it really NPOV to cite sources for information that are of the absolute minority view and pass that off as mainstream?" Yes Is it relevant? No --Peter McConaughey 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me qualify that. In some cases, when the only source of specific information useful to the topic is a minority view, a fully cited quote or summary can still be relevant. Also, the purpose of citing an opinion is to let the reader decide if it is "mainstream" or not. As long as we don't use weasel words, like "official," in the citation, we can avoid bias. --Peter McConaughey 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No mix up...Occam's Razor...the easiest explanation is usually the right one. We don't sit back and let the reader decide...this isn't Fox news! We find the most verifiable information and use that to write an encyclopedia, and at some point we all become editors. This isn't about what sells, or what will raise an eyebrow, but what will be accurate. Right now, the way folks like yourself are wording sections of this article, it is bordering on a piece of science fiction.--MONGO 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Fox News is famous for reaching conclusions for the viewer, not for letting the viewer decide. That is why NewsCorp is considered a joke. Here at Wikipedia, we are trying to avoid Fox-syndrome by never reaching conclusions for the reader. We present the facts. We report the conclusions of other people, but we never lose site of the fact that we are only a resource, not the creator of reality. Our job is not to tell people what to think about 9/11. We are not here to put any sort of spin on the event, to vilify anybody, or to vindicate ourselves. Wikipedia does nothing except provide a set of tools for researchers. The tools are only valuable if they can be trusted. When you use persuasive words and phrases, that trust is gone and the entire article becomes worthless. --Peter McConaughey 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
HUH? If anyone wants to fill our minds with misinformation and pass it off as forced fed fact for our digestion I would put CNN, BBC, AP and Reuters above Fox. Terrorists are terrorists and nothing more or less...it would be POV to call them something they are not such as freedom fighters or psychotic murderers. But surely there is citable sources that call them that, so why not use the infallible X says Y approach and stick that in the article...something like: Pat Robertson regards the terrorists attacks of 9/11 to have been the work of psychotic murderers. With X says Y, we can't go wrong!--MONGO 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"X says Y" takes care of the NPOV issue. It does not address the relevance issue. Pat Robertson's opinion is a matter of relevance.
"If anyone wants to fill our minds with misinformation and pass it off as forced fed fact for our digestion I would put CNN, BBC, AP and Reuters above Fox." Given that your edits look like they came straight from O'Reilly's mouth, I don't doubt that for a minute. --Peter McConaughey 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Now hold on there! You've been telling us in your edit summaries that we need to comply with Words to avoid and it clearly states there that we can use terms so long as we phrase it X says Y then relevance has nothing to do with it...we can fill this article up with every piece of misinformation or radical viewpoint we want so long as we follow that golden rule. Now you're saying ( as I have argued all along) that the source must have relevance? Are you telling me that Pat Robertson has less relevance to the English speaking world than Al Jazeera? So you think it would be NPOV to use the possible quote by Pat Robertson that the 9/11 terrorists were psychotic murders so long as we stated that he said it? Can I find such a similar passage and put it in the article as a stand alone with no counterbalancing viewpoint so long as I use X says Y format?--MONGO 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is made up of several things: 1/ Because it reports others words and does not make judgements as such (WP:NOR), when someone's called X we are often extremely careful to say "but thats Y's opinion". hence the rule "X says Y". 2/ Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotations. So it needs to choose its quotes carefully, to try and capture a balanced view. So 100 true quotes from one viewpoint all chosen pejoratively, isn't neutral. 3/ The sources quoted should be notable. That means, notable from bboth sides. What does the Saudi Government call Al-Qaeda is just as notable as what does the US govt call them, for example. How do Palistinians see the attacks may be as important as how Americans do. So we don't quote everyone. We try to quote in ways that honestly capture the relevant different viewpoints, and when we do, we present them in a balanced and non-pejorative manner using the "X says Y" wording to be clear who is making which claims. Hope that helps clarify. FT2 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Do I understand correctly that Peter disputes the neutrality of the section because it includes the phrase "the official 9/11 Commission Report?" Tom Harrison (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that Peter considers the word "official" to be a weasel word. While he's entitled to disagree with the contents of the reports, the fact is that the 9/11 Commission Report is the official report. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The narrative voice of an encyclopedia entry is a bridge between the reader and the cited information contained in the article. The cited information may disagree with the reader's beliefs, but the narrative voice must never draw conclusions asserting something that the reader could find offensive or controversial. If the article itself draws disputed conclusions, the entire resource becomes untrustworthy. To avoid Fox-syndrome, the narrative voice must always show complete deference to both the views of the reader and the external sources of information on the subject, allowing for both, but never requiring either.

The editors of Wikipedia create the narrative voice of our articles. Trust is an essential requirement of a solid resource. Our job is to make the information contained within an article believable so that it can be a tool for researchers. In order to do that, the narrative voice of the article must always present things in a neutral point of view, something that will agree with every reader. We are not here to convince the reader of anything, or to assume disputed "truths." Our only function is to organize and convey existing information in the most succinct manner possible. The information we cite must be accurate, but the narrative voice we use to reference that information must conform to a higher standard of also being "friendly" to the reader if it is to be trusted.

It's possible to convey any relevant information without the narrative voice offending the reader. This is done largely by adopting a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), but even the words we choose can convey certain cultural biases and "assumed truths" that will be controversial to members of our global readership.

An example would be Carbonite's adamance about including "official" before the "9/11 report." Why do we want to add undue weight to the words of the report? Why not allow the report to stand on its own? It doesn't call itself "official" on the title page. People outside of the United States don't consider it official. As a citizen of the United States, I can attest that some people inside the United States can see right through its weak content and assumptions as well. The United States government may have referred to it as "official," but does the US government speak for everyone here? Is the US government writing this article? Are there any "unofficial" "9/11 Commission Reports"? Is there any reason to call the 9/11 report "official" except to put a biased spin on it? --Peter McConaughey 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the word "official"

As long as you cite who considers it to be "official," there's no problem. [115]

It's referred to as the "official" report in the article itself. I went there expecting to find a section expounding the controversy surrounding this term and came up empty-handed. It should be trivial to add a:

... although critics such as Foo [116] and Bar [117] have objected to the use of the word "official" to describe the report, which, they, argue, is in fact unofficial, and at times, blatantly unauthorized.

- if indeed there is a widely reported objection to the description of that report as "official", but this isn't the place to pioneer that research.

I, for one, don't consider it to be very official because it is full of leading phrases and pejorative terms. [118]

Unless your objections have been widely reported by reputable sources, I'm at a loss to see what relevance they have to this discussion.

chocolateboy 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, disputed assertions may only be included when based on a verifiable source. We aren't at liberty to add anything we want and then ask reputable sources to disprove it. --Peter McConaughey 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
So Peter, you wanted to get rid of the weasel words, and now we have, "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) states in what it calls its "official 9/11 Commission Report," that..." Do you feel that this constitutes a net reduction in weasely-ness? Tom Harrison (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Having now searched the entire 9/11 report, it know that it doesn't even refer to itself as the "official 9/11 Commission Report" anywhere in the paper. The version I read said that it was the "Official Government Version," but that was it. Where is this "official" coming from? It's just the "9/11 Commission Report" as far as I can tell. Did the 9/11 Commission refer to it as "official" somewhere else? Unless we can cite that source, I think we should just take the weasle word off altogether. --Peter McConaughey 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
How about the ACLU? [119] "The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration." Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, disputed assertions may only be included when based on a verifiable source. We aren't at liberty to add anything we want and then ask reputable sources to disprove it.

Not if the dispute, as in this case, is based on a non-sequitur ("I, for one, don't consider it to be very official because it is full of leading phrases and pejorative terms") and an unsubstantiated claim that "official" (i.e. authorised) is a "weasel word".

We are not obliged to take things out because of irrelevant and unsubstantiated objections. The content of the report has no bearing on whether it was authorised or not; and I can find no evidence that "official" is considered to be a weasel word in this context. Would you also object to the description of Goleo VI or Cobi as "official" mascots?

The verifiable sources for the word "official" can be found in the 9/11 Commission Report article. That is the best place to wage this campaign if you wish to overthrow the status quo. Once that article lends credence to the idea that the 9/11 Commission Report was somehow not authorized by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, then that POV can be (and should be) represented here. Until then, it falls under the rubric of original research.

chocolateboy 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission Report isn't the mascot for our team. It may be the official mascot for the Bush's whitewash, but it doesn't represent me. "Official" is characteristic of being authorized by a proper authority. The only proper authority in this country is the people. As one of those people, I do not give any authority to the "9/11 Commision Report." Therefore, it cannot be deemed "official." --Peter McConaughey 18:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In future, I suggest you respond in a way that's relevant to the upkeep of the article rather than airing your own political proclivities, which are irrelevant here.

I've replaced "official" with "final", which is part of the full title of the report [120] and nets more Google hits. [121]

chocolateboy 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I answered that question above, but apparently not to your satisfaction. Let me try again with more detail.
Goleo VI or Cobi are "official" mascots of their organization because their organization recognizes them as "official." If only part of the Barcelona Organizing Committee recognized Cobi as the "official" mascot, he wouldn't be very official. It would be POV for part of the BOC to call Cobi "official" knowing full well that it did not represent the entire BOC.
By the same token, the 9/11 Commission Report does not represent all of the users of this encyclopedia. It is not the "official" explanation of what happened for a large segment of the world. Indeed, there are those of us within the United States who dispute the assumptions made within the report. It is not our official report either. So who gives this report its authority to be called "official?" Not the people it claims to represent, and certainly not all of the users of this resource. President Bush claims that the "9/11 Commission Report" is authoritative. Anyone who still believes President Bush may give it added strength to be called "official," but that is still the POV of the small minority of the total users of Wikipedia. If there is a single user who does not find the 9/11 Commission Report to be authoritative, then a dispute over the authority of the report exists. In the case of an NPOV dispute, an editor merely has to cite the source of the claim in the article to solve the dispute. Simply state who finds the report to be authoritative in the article, and you can keep your precious word if it means that much to you, but don't presume to witness that all editors of Wikipedia uphold the report to be "official." --Peter McConaughey 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The word's been changed now, so this is moot. But:

  • The passage you objected to read: "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States states in its official 9/11 Commission Report". It made no claims that the report somehow represents all Wikipedians or all Americans; it merely indicated that it was authorized by the 9/11 Commission, just as the mascots were authorized by their respective sporting bodies.
  • "By the same token, the 9/11 Commission Report does not represent all of the users of this encyclopedia." The views of Wikipedians are never directly relevant to Wikipedia articles, even those such as Wikipedia and John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy that are about Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and, of course, Wikipedia:No original research for the rationale.
  • There are cogent objections to the word "official" in this context (notwithstanding Carbonite's link I couldn't find many reputable (or official :-) sources using the word), but most of the objections you've raised are offtopic and draw attention away from the article towards your own polemic.

chocolateboy 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with numerous repetitions of "according to the United States government" if it is unclear from the context what is being cited. In less contentious Wikipedia articles this is what "official" means when referring to a report issued under the authority of the United States government about events in the United States. patsw 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The report is official because it was issued by the commission itself. It is an official document. It was issued by that office. Reporters often make reports about what so-and-so said. Those are not official reports. People frequently collect things people say into "unofficial" reports, often self-titled as such. Those reports contain lots of "official quotes". The point is that "official" relates to the issuing agency. I suggest that the adjective be treated something like an transtive verb, and nail that on a WP:whatever if you must. The report should be referred to as "____'s official 9/11 Commission Report". It is meaningless to refer to something as "official" unless the "office" is obvious. —Daelin@2006–01–06 21:24Z

Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? (again, the previous section got off track)

  • Describe their point of view. (i.e. they didn't actually hijack the aircraft, or they did, but they weren't terrorists, or whatever)
  • Identify them.
  • Cite where they have defined this point of view. (Internet, magazine, book, etc.)

Did I miss something in the previous section where there was a description, identification, and citation of the adherents of the point of view that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists? Please do this and move on. patsw 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We've answered your question twice. Do you consider it "getting off track" if the answer doesn't agree with your view of reality? --Peter McConaughey 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
In a nutshell, 99.9% of people might also call those nineteen hijackers assholes. But that doesn't make it appropriate to put that in the article. Graft 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes it does, if they are the majority voice and can be cited...we'll just use the X says Y technique and that will make it okay. Do you also prefer calling terrorists something else...I mean something other than what they are?--MONGO 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I would rather call them assholes than terrorists because the latter doesn't even agree with the definition. --Peter McConaughey 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Millions of people on this planet do not think of these men as terrorists. Furthermore, since there is no single, solid definition of the terms terrorist and terrorism, the label gets muddy. In some sense of the word, I think they are terrorists, in other senses of the world I think they are not. Kingturtle 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I bet I can find 50 reputable sources that say they are terrorists to every 1 that says they are not terrorists, or that their actions were not terrorism. I bet I can locate polls that are taken internationally that show a majority view that their actions were terrorism.--MONGO 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I will take that 50 to 1 bet on the condition that you wager something valuable, like your agreement to stop adding POV to this article if you are proven wrong. --Peter McConaughey 18:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using this section to argue against the POV of the United States government that the 19 hijackers were not terrorists -- we've got a dozen sections that do that already. This section is your place to discuss the other points of view:

Peter, Kingturtle, etc. you claim that there are adherents to the point of view that the 19 hijackers are not terrorists. This claim has to be verifiable. Let's start to edit that text:
  • If they were not terrorists, exactly what were they?
  • Who says so?
  • Where can I look that up? patsw 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Mongo:-

And especially:

Your post summarizes to: "I bet I can find lots of sources who have opinion X so Wikipedia should have opinion X too."

WRONG

FT2 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

When the minority view is to be the basis of concensus then that is when we no longer have an encyclopedia, but instead a rubbish heap of misinformation. I am well aware of those links and this post of yours is an absolute violation of WP:POINT.--MONGO 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Pawsw, a brief summary why various editors feel we cannot state "XYZ are terrorists" or "XYZ are Al-Qaeda terrorists":

  1. There *is* a clear consensus that the term "terrorist" is pejorative and an opinion usually applied by one side and denied by the other. This is made clear by consensus on both terrorism ("many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc") and definition of terrorism ("often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified... Because of the above pejorative connotations...")
  2. There is a clear view that terms implying pejoratives or viewpoints, are not neutral and should be avoided as labels (WP:NPOV)
  3. Other probably-pejorative terms are by and large avoided in other articles.
  4. The Al-Qaeda article consensus itself avoids using Wikipedia's voice to label Al-Qaeda as "a terrorist organisation".

The time it is okay to label a person as terrorist, is when its in the words of a cited source and attributed to that source (as opposed to in Wikipedia's voice). But that's not the question here. FT2 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever "Wikipedia voice" is, it is not a policy of the Wikipedia. Neutrality is. Neutrality is acheived by including all points of view. I plead: Who does not call the 19 hijackers terrorists? Describe their point of view, identify who holds it, and cite. Please, present a point of view that is an alternate to the point of view of the United States government and move on. patsw 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It's absurd to suggest that the attack against the Pentagon was an act of terrorism. The Pentagon is a military target. No demands were made. No coercion was levied. There were no motives of intimidation. The Pentagon was a direct attack, an act of conventional warfare. --Peter McConaughey 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You do realize the attack was carried out using a commerical airliner filled with innocent civilians? Carbonite | Talk 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. Are you suggesting that the hijackers crashed a plane into the Pentagon in order to give people a fear of flying? --Peter McConaughey 23:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not necessary nor helpful. The choice of the Pentagon as a target is but one aspect of the attack. The stateless nature of Al Qaeda, the intended death of civilians and the hijacking of a civilian aircraft as means are characteristic of terrorism in the definition used by the United States government.
If there's a point of view held by some adherents that the Pentagon attack was conventional warfare, please describe it, identify the adherents, and cite it. This might be a difficult task as the highest ranking Google page for that particular POV is this talk page itself and the POV of Peter McConaughey himself. patsw 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't conventional warfare as the terrorists knew they couldn't "win" a war against the U.S. It was a target of opportunity designed to just say, hey, we can strike you at your heart, and if we can do that, we can do anything. Textbook terrorism. I am amazed by Peter's comments above, especially after he claims he is conservative. The pentagon was struck for the same reasons as the towers, and that was to incite fear, prove that since they can do these things, they can do anything and to incite a sense of terror. There is no more difference between these actions and the suicide bomber that blows themself up at a restaurant except in terms of scale. Targets of opportunity, Peter, and an effort to instill fear.--MONGO 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the United States government, the 19 hijackers were terrorists

If needed, add according to the United States government liberally throughout the article where this context is unclear. patsw 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And provided that it's said in an appropriate manner, phrasings such as:
  • "Al-Qaeda, identified by the US govt as a terrorist organisation..."
  • "The US govt identifies Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization according it its standards"
  • "The hijackers, described as terrorists by the 9/11 report..."
  • "The US government's characterization of Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization commenced in the Bill Clinton administration, continues in the George Bush administration..."
are all okay. Thats all this has been about. The need to cite sources and make absolutely clear when stating facts of this kind, who said it. FT2 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"The 19 hijackers were terrorists as the United States government defines this word."
Why would I care how the United States government defines a word? Is that the job of the United States government? Even if creating language were the job of the U.S. government for its people, isn't Wikipedia an international resource? Could the U.S. government create "good" terms if we hired them for that job? Are they really "good" at anything we hire them to do?
Personally, I think the U.S. government sucks at creating terms. They're full of propaganda and used to promote wars, fear-mongering, and vagaries to confuse our rights and liberties. I choose not to adopt any definitions created by the U.S. government. Basing the article entirely on what the U.S. government says makes it a very weak article. The source is obviously biased, but at least you've started citing your source. --Peter McConaughey 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a point of view presented in the article (i.e. attributed, verified, and cited). We're editing an encyclopedia. Peter, you don't have to care. patsw 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think on the whole, tentatively, I agree with Patsw. It is certain that the US govts opinion is notable, and that this is a view held by many people. So I think saying that they are considered terrorists "by the US govt" or "as the US govt defines the term", might actually be a fair wording. We are not answerable for the US govts use of spin and wording. This wording does at least hint there could be other definitions or views, rather than being advocative. In that sense, it might not be the best wording, but its probably one I coukld live with. My only thought is, are there any citable credible sources we should be noting, for completeness, such as other govts or bodies, that openly say they have a fundamentally different characterization? FT2 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm just giving you some friendly advice. If you want your article to be credibly, you shouldn't use a liar as your only source, but that's your business. As long as the article is NPOV, there isn't egg on my face. I only want to be cited as a Wikipedia editor if Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
As I see it in the vast majority of encyclopedias, there isn't a need for footnotes or inline links within the body of the article space, but are instead posted usually at the end of the article as we can do here through external links, references, notes, etc. It is only importnat in articles such as this one that for some odd reason a number of people find the evidence to be something other than common knowledge. This, unfortunately makes the effort appear somewhat more like a college term paper than an actual encyclopedic article. It is very amateurish and vague, as well as entirely POV. It is much further from being neutral than any time I have seen it over the past year.--MONGO 02:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, some people find a difference between White House propaganda and "common knowledge." --Peter McConaughey 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that what you believe is a definitve distortion of the evidence.--MONGO 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

It looks like all the NPOV disputes are solved. You are all invited over to Sarah's house for pizza. --Peter McConaughey 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One minor tweak, the comment that the majority of independent media sources reached the same conclusion, edited slightly and shortened: 1/ Many governments did, as well as media, this wasn't stated, so i added "governments and". 2/ We don't know if it was the "majority" (how would one count, anyhow) so best just say "many" and not try to quantify it. 3/ Most media lack resources to truly "reach conclusions", they often report the news as reported by wire etc, from others, so "reached the same conclusion" may not be accurate, what we do know is they either reached, or at the least stated, the same opinion. So I've changed the wording to reflect that because that we do know. FT2 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Slander?

MONGO, you reverted something that is not disputed by anyone including the United States government. Are you now disputing the accuracy of every aspect of the following?

...and a network of secret CIA prisons in foreign countries to which detainees were secretly taken without being charged and without the opportunity of having their day in court. Often these prisoners were abused or tortured, and there are allegations that their religious books were desecrated. The U.S. government argued that such abuses were necessary to obtain information from the prisoners, and that in any case the U.S. president has the power to violate the "arcane" Geneva Conventions.

If you are disputing every aspect of this, I will go through all the trouble of citing every assertion, but otherwise, it looks to me like you reverted something without even trying to incorporate the information. Please assume good faith and abide by the WP:0RR. --Peter McConaughey 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter...it needs to be reworded as something other than a personal attack and needs to have the infallible "X says Y" treatment applied...that way we know it's TRUE! Besides...what has any of it got to do with 9/11..it should be in the aftermath sections of the subarticle....--MONGO 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with MONGO. The section was written poorly (the sarcastic use of the word arcane is over-the-top) and we don't need all of the details to be this prominent in the document structure. --Quasipalm 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Incorporating what we can is a much more polite method than reverting things out of hand. A blanket reversion is like a slap in the face. It tells the editor that he is either incompetent or a vandal - that he isn't worthy of contributing even an idea that can be worked with. Additionally, the original revert said, "You can put that back in if you can find a completely reputable source for that slander." Is that true or just an excuse to delete it? When the editor goes through all the trouble of citing every source, are you then going to use relevance as an excuse to delete it again? How can you be so rude to someone and wonder why Wikipedia has so many vandals?
People will express themselves. If you bring them into the fold, treat them as equals, consider their edits to be made in good faith, and give them a productive outlet, you'll find in more cases than not that you've made a contributor out of a potential "trouble maker." --Peter McConaughey 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Happens all the time...it wasn't encyclopedic and didn't use X says Y...your golden rule.--MONGO 06:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Verify "two thirds hold false views"

Two-thirds of Americans hold false views about 9/11, such as the view that Iraq was behind 9/11 (Univ of Maryland, PIPES survey), and the more television news Americans watch the more likely they are to hold such false views, according to the PIPES survey.

I wasn't able to quickly verify this. In fact, google of "univ of maryland" "pipes survey" turned up zero hits. [122]

Could we have a proper citation, tie the so-called "false view" to the actual survey question, and when this survery happened? patsw 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the current article version. I did some quick google searches and found the Pipa, not PIPES, survey report by the University of Maryland. I copyedited the statement and moved to "War on Terrorism" section, and eliminated any specific numbers (e.g. two-thirds), as they mention many different polls conducted with varying figures. I think the anon. user is valid in adding this particular point (See: Don't Bite the Newcomers), but needs to better understand how to cite sources and the Manual of Style. --Aude 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Though, many of this user's other edits seem suspect to me and POV... --Aude 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Health effects

I removed "Although an EPA study showed dangerously high levels of toxic dust, the federal goverment withheld this information from the public and encouraged residents to return to lower Manhattan (NY Times, Fall 2004).", added by 216.57.0.210.

"NY Times, Fall 2004" isn't specific enough a source, and I'm not going to bother trying to verify this on google. --Aude 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a lot easier to call someone a liar than to type six words into Google.
--Peter McConaughey 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Who called who a liar? Arkon 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
"dangerously high levels of toxic dust" is not a phrase from the reports in the links provided by Peter McConahughey. In fact, the phrase has zero hits on Google [123].
Its deletion from the article with a comment here is appropriate. Adding an accurate summary from the EPA internal review with a verifiable link would be appropriate too. I'm assuming good faith on the part of 216.57.0.210 but zero google hits indicates a verification problem with the quote, doesn't it? patsw 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Concrete proof of a point of view

there has not been concrete proof that he [bin Laden] either is still alive or in hiding.

  • What in the opinion of Bobblewik would constitute "concrete proof"?
  • Why should his point of view denying this undefined "concrete proof" exists be presented as fact in the article?

patsw 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11 watchlist

In response to the increasing number of people using the 9/11 articles as a platform for wild theories, I created a watchlist so we can keep track of these attempts. Please visit User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist. You can use the "recent changes" link to view recent edits to the articles listed. Feel free to add any other relevant articles. Rhobite 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa...good job!--MONGO 07:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the watchlist. I'll definitely keep my eye on those. For my own vandalism/pov/linkspam watchlist of more general current events, politics, history (these get vandalized a lot), or otherwise controversial topics, I have User:Kmf164/Vandalism_watchlist and don't mind if others add suggestions to my list too. --Aude 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html u guys should see this

What happened to the passengers aboard the plane that this video says never hit the Pentagon?...did the evil U.S. government send then to Gitmo?--MONGO 10:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing a LOT of information..

Oh boy.. Where to start?

It seems current events have outdated this page.

By now it is pretty certain the Pentagon was NOT hit by an airplane.

Now, I know it hurts, to change this piece of information, but shouldnt wikipedia just resemble the facts?

I cant find any prove of a plane hitting it. Anywhere. I can find lots and lots of documents describing that the debries was from a different type of plane and that the pentagon was struck by either a missile or a bomb. Not an airplane....

I can even find a document in which Rumsfeld HIMSELF apparently says it is a missile.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html

http://membrane.com/news/Pentagon_911.html

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm

See 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's already covered there. As MONGO asked above, where exactly did the U.S. government murder the passengers of flight 77? What did they do with the plane? Rhobite 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Precisely...Devil's Triangle now extends over a much bigger area.--MONGO 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide reaction

What I wrote was deleted for some reason. If you have a problem with how it is written, tell me. The TRUTH of the matter is that this is how many people across the world saw the attacks.

Then you need to find a source for that information. Your comments are spurious and were mere opinion, especially the last one you made on this talk page. See WP:NOR.--MONGO 08:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I cant find a news article based on what me and my friends felt the day after the attack, I live in Australia so we found out the next day. I CAN remember seeing people in Palestine celebrating

That's nice.--MONGO 09:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does THIS offend you less?

While most news and media centres around the world condemned the attacks, many people felt indifferent while some saw the attacks in a positive light. People who werent directly effected and didnt see any reason to pretend to feel sorry for the victims and terrorists who died found comedy in the attacks and still continue to poke fun at them. Across many countries which held Anti American sympathies, people rejoiced the attacks, particularly in the third world and the Middle East. Even people in the U.S celebrated the attacks, one Ward Churchill commenting on the people who worked in the Twin Towers 'they were all little Eichmanns' Reactions were diversified to say the least.

it's not a matter of it offending or not, though that does seem to be your orignal purpose. It is unreferenced...please see WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV--MONGO 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I SIMPLY want to state WHAT the public reaction was. Seeing that you already overly express that it was sad for many people, I wished to express the opposite end of the spectrum. Being in this spectrum, I felt it even more necasery. But if this is just going to be a whine fest fuck it

We're not a discussion board where each opinion or restatement of fact is accepted and subsequent comments debate or support the earlier entries.
Perhaps the article could be improved by adding a link to an account of celebration of the attacks where it took place in the world. But we're not relying on memory, we're relying on the combined effort of motivated editors to create a usable online encyclopedia. patsw 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition to the intro

I intend to add this to September 11, 2001 attacks at the end of the second paragraph:

Bin Laden categorically denied involvement in two 2001 statements [124], before admitting in a taped statement a direct link to the attacks, saying

While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.

For the full text of the video, see wikisource:Text of 2004 Osama bin Laden videotape. Osama bin Laden's current whereabouts are unknown.

Tom Harrison (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attribute opinion

A relatively small minority reject the view that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, often citing the CIA, Mossad, or pro-Zionist elements as the likely perpetrators. Others, while accepting Al-Qaeda's culpability, allege that members of the American government withheld foreknowledge of the attacks, silently sanctioning them.

Can the minority and the others be identified and cited?

If they cannot be, then this will be deleted as unverified. patsw 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's give it 24 hours and if no one can provide a proper citation, then I say remove it.--MONGO 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a lead in to the conspiracy article, which has a veritable flood of citations and identifications by the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd... should we just pick a few at random? Ronabop 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society

Claims like "although the legitimacy of this video has been hotly disputed" just drive me nuts -- the only people disputing the veracity of the Bin Laden tape are people that actively and willfully disregard the overwhelming evidence of the Al Queda/Bin Laden responsibility for 911. They don't really believe these assertions, but advance them because they are blinded by their hatred of Israel and the US. There are people on this planet who also believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that their POV is valid or even worth describing on Wikipedia -- it should be edited out completely. This should not be a place for the nutburgers that believe that the US or Israel planned the attacks on the WTC. Morton devonshire 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Morton_devonshire

Actually we do protect the POV of the flat earth society, same thing for moonies, scientologists, christians, and other similar wackjobs, anyone with enough time to spend on the internet--64.12.116.201 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And those that hide behind anonymous IPs. Morton devonshire 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at that "legitimacy" word myself as unattributed POV. This article is full of "disputes" and "allegations" where the disputer or allegator is not identified. If a writer cannot identify who disputes or who alleges then it is a POV from nowhere and should be attributed and cited or deleted. patsw 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arts and Literature section

How about splitting off the "Arts and literature" section into a separate article? There are just three mentioned (a play, a novel, an upcoming film), while I'm sure there are others, such as 9/11 (film) that aren't mentioned. I don't really think that these are central to the article, and would be more suitable as a separate article, linked from here in the "See also" section. --Aude 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea; That's going to grow over time. Include music too if you want.Tom Harrison (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

redirect

when you search for "september 11, 2001" it redirects you to "September 11, 2001 attacks", it should not do that, for other things happened on september 11 2001 besides the attacks.WikiJake 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Full dates are never used for general purposes in Wikipedia. Events are listed either as 11 September or under 2001. Nothing else significant happened on this day (most of the world were watching these events). josh (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Severity

Has there been a more destructive terrorist attack? Tom Harrison (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... "worst and most infamous act of terrorism in World history". I won't argue with the term, *imfamous*. Though, at first when I saw this phrase, I didn't like the word "worst" and saying it's the worst in "World history". I'm saying this because groups like the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) [125] — former members Interahamwe, who killed 800,000+ in Rwanda, could also be considered by some, "terrorist". I'm not sure I agree with calling them that, but it's arguable. And not sure I'd consider the genocide as a single "attack" or what.
On the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, they don't count ALIR as terrorist and indeed have 9/11 as the worst/most fatalities. Though, the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) also note "Data for 1968-1997 covers only international incidents." and "Data for 1998-Present covers both domestic and international incidents." I don't know how far back their data goes.
To avoid an edit war here, maybe instead, it should say "worst terrorist attack in American history" or "deadliest terrorist attack in American history". -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Without a doubt it is the worst act of terrorism in the World since the end of World War II. That is undebatable. The worst terrorist attack in North American history? Absolutely. Now it would take some time to go back a good thousand years and see if anything like what happened on 9/11 was more destructive an resulted in a huge loss of life. Two high-rise buildings, each 110 stories tall--destroyed by two jetliners slamming into each of those buildings. It is a miracle that the death toll wasn't even higher; and the heroic actions of the passengers that were in the other plane that slammed into Pennsylvania...that plane was headed towards the White House! September 11, 2001 will definately go down as a date which will live in infamy. -RobDon33, 04:37 UTC 01 January 2006
I agree with your comments (especially so, as an American), but also recognize that "there is no single accepted definition of terrorism" (see Terrorism). I suggest checking out the list of massacres (9/11 is listed here), as well as List_of_terrorist_incidents, Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents, Talk:Terrorism. As you say, I'm not sure we can go back through thousands of years of world history and not find other horrendous, more deadly acts that could be considered terrorism. Thus, I just don't think we should make such a blanket statement in this article as "worst ... act of terrorism in world history". Though, if we say "American" history, that's fine, and I also certainly agree with describing 9/11 as the most *infamous*. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
La matanza, 30,000 civillians killed by state sponsored terrorism, in North America, back in 1932.... maybe "worst terrorist attack in United States history"? Black November has it beat for worst civillian-on-civillian attacks in the *world* since WW II, others have noted Ruwanda, and then there's Srebinca, Congolese cival war, Khymer Rouge, attacks in the Iran-Iraq war, the massacre of communists in Indochina, the current civil massacres in Somalia, etc. It's the whole problem of "who defines terrorism, and how". Would anybody have a problem with describing it as the "worst terrorist attack in united states history", so we don't get into edit wars over the above incidents? Ronabop 05:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Effect on Internet.

I particularly remember the indirect effect the attacks had on the Internet. Due to the sheer level of traffic, many sites took extraordinarily long times to respond, and often timed out. Should a mention be made of that, provided a source can be found?--Drat (Talk) 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate figure for number of people who jumped from the WTC

The figure reported in the article is inaccurate. While at first it was thought and also reported that approx. 200 people did jump to their deaths from the WTC, after analysis of the hundreds of hours of videotape by news sources and law enforcement, it was later determined that the number was lower, approx. 50. I will edit to reflect that, as the attacks and deaths were horrific enough and don't need any extra embellishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.200.240.19 (talk • contribs)

Thank you; Please inculde a citation. Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I put the 200 estimate back in the article; that estimate is from USA Today [126]. If you have a more up to date reference, please cite it. Rhobite 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro Rework Rebuffed

I attempted to put the following into the introduction near the top and somebody rejected it:

This event marked a major change in world politics of which the ramifications are still playing out in the Iraq war and increased tension between Islamic and Christian countries and values. As a single date it is sometimes compared to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which triggered World War One as far as impact.

The current intro gets into specifics too early. The general geopolitical impact is more important than details of the hajacking etc. The details of the event should be moved lower. The introduction should be 2 paragraphs, the first describing the event and the second something like the above that talks about the general impact. Even if you disagree with my wording, it should be clear that the approach taken by the current introduction is poor level-of-detail organization.

Having never once heard it compared to the assassination of Ferdinand (hell, I can't even recall off the top of my head what day it was), and isn't that kind of a specific thing? I dunno. Maybe if others agree, but I thought it didn't belong, and it's kind of telling the reader what conclusions to make. It's also assuming that all Christian and all Islamic countries had increased tensions. --Golbez 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps of the details of that specific suggestion are debatable. However, I still feel that the introduction gets into details too early. The geopolitical impact of 911 is at least as important as the specific events and should be mentioned earlier IMO. Perhaps a separate "Sequence of Events" section should be created to give the time-line and move events in the intro down into the Sequence section. I tend to believe that a small paragraph or two at the very beginning should have a general summary, almost a dictionary-size-like entry. I agree that the geopolitical impact is harder to objectively define, but that does not make it less important, only more challenging to describe. The Sequence section could look something like this:

06:02 - Foo gets into a car with friend Blah.

07:43 - Foo arrives at airport

08:02 - Blah puts a box cutter in his sock.

09:10 - Etc....

nine-one-one

though a few people prefer "nine-one-one" (the same as the telephone number for emergency services in the U.S., 9-1-1). Some people dislike the use of "nine-one-one" due to the similarity to "9-1-1" (which implies a call for help) and the obvious practical point - that this would be far more confusing and potentially ambiguous, and prefer to state the date as "September 11th"; this is also the preferred form in academic writing. Nonetheless, "nine-eleven" is the most common form.

What is this all about? Where does it come from? I've never seen or heard the September 11, 2001 attacks referred to as "nine-one-one".

It's vague. (i.e. few and some and the obvious practical point)

Is there a cite for the "nine-one-one" reference? If not, this section should be removed as unverifiable. patsw 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly heard 9-1-1 used casually to refer to September 11. Mostly spoken, rather than written word. It is trivial and trite, but it is a coincidence that might be worth noting to help minimize confusion. -- Pinktulip 11:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

An annecdote is not evidence. Please discuss its verification here. patsw 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


User:202.156.6.54 posted this to the article page, at the end of the section '9/11':

(This is possibly true of the London attacks but not of Madrid. There is a long tradition of similar abbreviations being applied to significant events in Spain, notably the coup attempt of February 23, 1981)

Tom Harrison Talk 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.

This recently added section makes little sense to me. It discusses what didn't happen. Does anyone besides it author see relevance, significance, etc.?

I would also strike this as being irrelevant and insignificant:

A high volume of put option purchases[127], [128] and other unusual market activity [129] occurred in the days and weeks before 9/11, prompting international investigations into alleged insider trading.

No connection to 9/11: so what is it doing here? patsw 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld's admission that a missile was used in 9/11

Donald Rumsfeld admits that a missile hit the Pentagon and "similar" flying contrivances contributed to the WTC attacks as well. This admission can be found in the official Defense Link Government Website.

"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Read what other people had to say about Rumsfeld's admission:

That sentence with the missile reference reads rather awkwardly. I think it's highly possible that it was a bad transcription that should have read, "...using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..." That makes more sense. Had he actually said that, you'd think that it would've been more of a news story then (or especially now when support for the administration is at an all-time low). That fact that it's discussed in a web forum doesn't add any credence, either. Furthermore, while I realize that there are many "under-reported" unews stories, a Google news search [130] for the terms (Rumsfeld missile "World Trade Center") yields one result that is unrelated to the aforementioned transcript. OhnoitsJamieTalk 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite so. To characterize it as an "admission" is overblown. Consider the context--the interviewer doesn't bat an editorial eyelash when Rumsfeld says this, and goes on to the next question. -- Cecropia

Identification of the hijackers as Arab.

Anon added the identification of the hijackers as Arab. Is that accurate and relevant? patsw 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In the next paragraph, they added "Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon.". That's more specific and I think suffices. I don't think we need to say "Arab hijackers" in the first paragraph. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not editing your comment just saying that i also believe there was a missel of some sort used in that attack, and if this movie offends anyone in any way please tell me so but this movie is factual evidence that there was no 757 that hit the pentagon... http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.70.148 (talk • contribs) .

No, it's a poorly produced movie with a list of quotes from names. I find it amusing that so many civilians in the Pentagon area know what a missile sounds like. Occam's razor: Where's the 757? --Golbez 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A 757 flying at 200 feet above the ground would hit the pentagon before anyone heard it at the pentagon. The explosion sound would be there before the sound of the incoming plane would. This is true of missles as well oftentimes. Yes, where is the 757, and the passengers as well.--MONGO 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We should shorten the lead section

In the middle paragraph of the lead section, the National Commission is mentioned. That is the wrong approach. A better approach is to boldly make the assertions about Al-Quaida, etc. and then justify those assertions later. -- Pinktulip 12:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that for a lead section? Just simple, direct assertions. No telling the reader that the hijackers were terrorists. The reader already knows that people who hyjack planes are terrorists. Just the big chucks. No commissions. No letting someone else make the assertions. And some additional historical context, notice the two wars that followed. -- Pinktulip 12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we add this link to the Links section: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001 -- Pinktulip 13:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all of Pinktulip's changes are an improvement. He's added weak language like, "were determined to be associated with..." and "It was determined that...". Improvement or not, all the information he took out needs to go back in the article somewhere. Having that information up front does make the intro more complex, but also avoids those vague passive-voice statements. I don't really want to just revert over all his work, but rewriting it might have the same result. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I chose those phrases quite deliberately because I did not want to lead off the second paragraph with "A massive investigation deteremined the following:". The reader can figure out pretty quickly that there was a massive investigation involving many government organzations (which some of you list-makers would then try to start rattling off). But adding that verbiage to the text just wastes the reader's time. The language is deliberately vague and passive, but more importantly: it gets to the point. -- Pinktulip 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not put footnotes in the lead section! Do not document the assertions in the lead section! This story is too complicated for that. Just make the assertions and document and justify and enumerate them in the LATER sections. You see what happened with the work done by the foot-noters? They were so obsessed with footnoting Bin Laden's denial (which is the LEAST notable item in that second paragraph) and they FORGOT to tell the reader that Bin Laden is still at large. That is a lack of judgement. The foot-noters are failing to recognize what is Important in the story. -- Pinktulip 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You see that? That foot-noters back again, foot-noting Bin Laden's denial. What is it with these people? Bin Laden's initial denial is NOT VERY IMPORTANT. -- Pinktulip 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out explicitly talking about Bin Laden's denial. He might have lied Monday, told the truth Tuesday and who-knows-wath on Wesnesday. It is not very important. The fact is that NOW, he has mostly admitted to his involvement and that NOW, the World pretty much accepts his admission to his involvement. And that is pretty much how it will remain, probably forever. -- Pinktulip 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip's tone, his use of capital letters, and his characterisation of others as "foot-noters" is uncivil, as is the suggestion that those who disagree with him lack judgement. Remarks like, "What is it with these people?" may be taken as personnal attacks. I hope he avoids this kind of language in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 02:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Pinktulip should look for consenus before removing the mention in the article of bin Laden's denial. I do not support it. His denial is significant even though he later admitted to involvement because the denial triggered the accusation of President Bush in September 2001 of a rush to judgment. The Wikipedia doesn't need to be the source to tell you what's not happened, what's not be said, who's not been captured, etc. patsw 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"...initially denied <footnote> but.." Three words and an out-of-place footnote. Still expensive for such a trivial piece of information. Bin Laden's denial amounts to little more than hot air. I suspect that the problem is that some of you guys are desperate to label Bin Laden a "liar". Or else you simply have your precioius supporting documentation, and therefore the item MUST go in as early as possible. Pathetic. You already got the label "terrorist" on him and almost all readers know that terrorists, by necessity, are often liars. It is a compromise in the quality of the lead section text, but do not feel like slugging it out with you guys over it at the moment. -- Pinktulip 10:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing me as "desparate to label bin Laden a liar" is not an effective rebuttal to "his denial is significant". Whatever is said by critics of President Bush is used by the terrorists for propaganda purposes and vice versa. This is as true in 2006 as it was in 2001. There was a significant criticism of President Bush for attacking the Taliban regime after they rejected the ultimatum to turn over bin Laden based on these two claims: (1) bin Laden denied it (2) proof beyond reasonable doubt that bin Laden was involved was not produced. patsw 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Bin Laden's denial was hot air. Bush's "offer" for Bin Land to turn himself in was more hot air. Nothing came of all that talk. In this case, from a historical point of veiw, it is actions that count. The talk deserves a mention in later sections, but not in the lead section. -- Pinktulip 03:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
"Whatever is said by critics of President Bush is used by the terrorists for propaganda purposes and vice versa."
"Bin Laden's denial was hot air. Bush's "offer" for Bin Land to turn himself in was more hot air."
Where is the evidence for either of these? Sounds like 'conspiracy theories' if you ask me . . . Bov 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally POV beginning of the article

>event in which a total of nineteen Arab hijackers simultaneously took control of four U.S. domestic commercial airliners

This is not a fact, just a theory, no matter how likely. There can never be mathematically exact proof of this, since all the planes were destroyed beyond recognition. The fact that those five young jews were detained by police while dancing in the streets when the WTC, which they have been filming for hours, suddenly got struck will always leave the little doubt that the 19 either were not the perpetrators, or they were not alone, possibly serving as mere puppets onboard. Anyhow, you cannot state it as a matter of fact the above quoted sentence. If you state this then you are racist, because you always apply presumption innocence when dealing with caucasian master races, but pig arabs and followers of dog prophpet Muhammad are assumed guilty by default. 195.70.32.136 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from making such comments. This is obviously another 'israel/jews' did it theory.. A lot of people celebrated on 9/11 but it doesn't make them guilty of or associated with it. Also it is still in the balance whether that U.S government (and client state Israel) may have known of the plan and let the event happen. But this does not mean it was perpetrated or organised by those 2 countries. -- max rspct leave a message 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The WTC was a target since 1993 when they tried to blow it up with the van in the underground garage...the government of the U.S. also had some knowledge that was of only a very low credibility that hijacked planes may be employed as missles prior to the attack. That there was any coverup or that there was any credible evidence that this was going to happen and the government of the U.S. failed to act is completely incorrect. No event of this scale goes completely unnoticed while in the planning stages...but leads do not in themselves warrant the level of suspicions they oftentimes should. The lack of imagination of those in positions of decision making rarely exceed that of advisors and investigators who know how to put the pieces together as that is the fundemental focus of their occupation. Did investigators bring forth evidence that planes would be hijacked...yes they did. Was the evidence more convincing than other evidences of other possibilities...probably not. I'm not convinced a lot of people celebrated on 9/11 aside from those in the Muslim world...and I can forgive them for that due to the view by some that the U.S. is evil and antiMuslim. As far as the rest of the world, if they found anything comical or celebratory about the events of 9/11, then they must be sick.--MONGO 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the bulge

This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Two details in lead section

  • "The September 11th attacks are among the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century in terms of the profound (effects)..." I find "in terms of" to be weak language. I also find having "most significant" and "profound" in the same sentance to be tiresome. You already told me that this thing is Important. Do you think that the reader is going to assume that the effects were trivial or mild? Please folks: only one intensifier per sentance. Reasonable guideline? -- Pinktulip 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I added this line: "Millions of TV viewers watched as individuals jumped from the towers to escape the flames." but it has been removed. I added it because it succinctly conveyed what I think was an important fact: This event was televized. Does it matter that this event was televized and had tons of other media coverage? I think so. I think that it is a reality that such events getting onto live TV makes a political difference, but I have an open mind. Does the line take up too much room for the information it conveys? Feedback please. -- Pinktulip 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Millions of TV viewers watched..." I'm undecided on this. I've already had to AdBlock several of the images on this page because they're too horrifying to look at every morning. On the other hand, I agree that the media coverage was significant. As a terrorist, lots of violent death on national TV was part of bin Laden's goal. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was this disaster not the first to be shown worldwide in realtime? I don't recall any other --EyesAllMine 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arab hijackers...

I think we hammer the point home in the second paragraph that the hijackers were "of Arabic origin". Do we really have to mention this in the first paragraph that they were Arab (that whole ambiguity between ethnicity and nationality...)? We are having a mild edit war over the wording of the first paragraph because of this. -- Pinktulip 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately it may be better to list their nationalities and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that "edit war" is just because no article can be written in an absolute objective way... The paragraph says "the hijackers WERE DETERMINED to be...." by whom? Later in the paragraph "American investigators" are mentioned but just related to the "planner" of the hijack... Also, why "American"? They're from USA, America is bigger, you all should know ;) Please don't take this as some kind of vandalism or something like that, just my opinion.. I'm Smeaghol logged off.
I would be nice if "American investigators" could apply to the entire second paragraph. Yes, that is not quite the entire story (since other countries helped), but how do you say it succinctly? Something about an "American-led" investigation? Maybe start the 2nd par. with: "Investigators, primarily those of the USA, determined that..." ? (already using eight words just to keep everybody happy; please - no more than that). -- Pinktulip 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts about building seven

Building seven was standing about block away from the towers. And was not hit by a plane.

Those two facts are of relevance, and we should be able to include these in the article. Honestly I dont see how including this lead to the assumption that the building was demolished. Whatever conclusions one may or may not draw from facts is irrelevant to writing a encyclopedia.

And as long as the, to me (it seems to be pure speculation and can never be verified for sure), rather farfetched discussion about what silverstein meant or not when he said pull it, gets so much attention (I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished) is included in a lot of articles there is no consistancy in omitting simple facts about the location and situation of building seven. --EyesAllMine 13:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You got any PROOF that there was controlled demolition, other than the allusions and misrepresentations of comments by the likes of Silverstein? I am really looking forward to proof...did the controlled demolition experts all die too? Your comment, "(I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished)" is simply just that...suggestive and is not encyclopedic, as it cannot be backed up by any facts that there was controlled demolition. I'm waiting for facts that would stand up in a court of law under cross examination. We're not going to dally in speculations or allusions here.--MONGO 13:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ... I don't know what got building seven down ... Others are having a hard time as well trying to find out (NIST, FEMA), I'm not having a special hidden agenda here, as you suggest. My interest is in stating the facts. Thats it. Omitting facts is not encyclopedic. About Silverstein, I dont know, and I dont care about what he meant or not. Really. Is not a factual thing. Some find it suggestive, I don't. Actually I'm amazed his remark is mentioned all over wikipedia --EyesAllMine 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 14

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Photography

Image:9-11 Pentagon explosion.jpg
300px

I don't see any plane in this pohotography. Ariev 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Um....maybe because it BLEW UP? --Mmx1 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) It blew up too in World Trade Center and some airplane parts have been found. Ariev 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Web Sites

List contriversal/conspiracy web sites. That pretty much means list websites that tell the truth...

[131]

[132]

"Experts"

A lot of you seem to think you're "experts" on this topic (you wouldn't be editing pages otherwise).

If you feel expert enough to edit these pages, please take a little time to actually investigate the topic.

Proactively seek the truth. Make up your own mind. Don't believe everything you're told, and definately don't believe everything the Bush and the PNAC neo-cons tell you about 9/11.

911truth.org

You're no expert yourself. If you think Bush would actually plan out the 9/11 attacks YOUR CRAZY!!! I just hate people like you.

Confusion

There was some confusion between OrbitOne and myself; he thought I caused the vandalism. Everything's worked out now. Xiphoris 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Meved this down from up top....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, there was some obvious vandalism to this page with someone defacing it to say that Saddam Hussein was behind it, UFOs, Effiel Tower was hit, etc. I tried to revert it properly but don't know if I did. Xiphoris 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of templates. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved this down from up top.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives

...so why did User:SNIyer12 delete all of the page contents...? Jhardin@impsec 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He just put the older stuff in archives, where you can still read them. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I just put the older stuff so that I can reduce the page size. However, you can still read the older stuff in the archives. SNIyer12 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I put a headline on this......--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions

To tell the truth, i think the government knew all about 9/11 n' crap. Oh, and if the towers fell from planes, then why did they fall EXACTLY how buildings fall when they are dynamited eh? I think that 9/11 was all planned. Son Goku22

Yes... I have the same suspicion. Here's a web site that I found. [133]Oh, by the way, try to remember to put a headline on the section.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the bulge

I am repeating this because it is unfinsihed business that was archived.

This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I also want to point out that we have over 40 URL footnotes. That is too many. We should delegate that stuff to the "main article" subpages or make regular references out of them. With seven subpages, it should be possible to get this article below 30 KBytes. -- Pinktulip 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 commission is not the story

This is about what happened on 9/11 and its specfic aftermath. Please do not insert the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. Please do not insert the word "terrorist" into the text an excessive number of times. The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists. The 9/11 Commission has its own page. -- Pinktulip 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is correct to say that the terrorists were terrorists; ostentatiously avoiding the word is not neutrality. Some editors have thought it necessary to make clear that the 9/11 Commission is the organization that using the 't' word; this is part of why I was concerned with your (otherwise reasonable) efforts to trim fat from the article. In trimming fat, you also cut out the citations that some thought needed to be there. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists."

No, people who hijack planes are not exclusively terrorists. See article about Aircraft hijacking for many cases (ransoms, etc.), which are not described "terrorism" but just "criminal".
Terrorism is strongly politically colored word without clear definition, and therefore should be avoided (see words to avoid guidelines). Politically motivated aircraft hijackers should be refered to with word "militant" - it includes all the same information without being arbitrary used for political purposes. Klaam 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Um...you seem to be very attuned for someone with so few edits...have we met before? Sorry if the term is perjorative...this is an article about an event that happened in the U.S. and every single media source and the U.S. Government call the actions of the hijackers terrorists...they didn't just take the planes to Tahiti...they used them as missles, killing almost 3,000 people and that is terrorism.--MONGO 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if everysingle Pakistani and Middle-East media describes Pakistani civilian village bombed by US with word "terrorism", is that a good reason to refer to CIA or whatever as a US-supported terrorist organizations in Wikipedia articles? On the other hand, many acts called 'terrorism' by US media are globally (possibly by larger population) called militarism. We should not define the use of words according to media in some country, but use politically neural word as "militant".
And on the other hand, one of the 911 attacks was on military target and others could be described as strategic targets like tv-station and power station in iraq war, thus someone might argue that civilian casualties were just unnecessarily casualties (and yes, Bin Laden said so).
Or is "terrorism" defined by number of civilian casualties? Someone might argue, that CIA is equal to Taleban-era Afghanistan supported Al-Qaeda because it equipped and supported acts done by Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet, Talebans, etc., which after all, resulted entire genocides. So civilian casualties can't be the defining criteria either.
I suggest that the word "terrorism" is used only in citations.Klaam 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or every single Chinese media and Chinese government labeling independece movements such Falun Gong (which has killed pro-government civilians) "terrorist pr

Tom Harrison: You are spliting hairs. We are not talking about hijacking cargo planes. Kidnapping is an act of violence and terrorism, even if a ransom is asked for. It is only the coercive force of threatened violence that puts the kidnappers into a position to demand the ransom. It is not as if you could argue that the kidnappers are entrepeneurs who are starting a profitable new business because the act itself is fundamentally destructive to civilization. Your approach suggests that you wish to reduce to the discussion down to simply calling some of the participants "terrorists" and letting it go at that. Wikipedia is not about providing labels. It is about providing information and letting the reader be the judge. -- Pinktulip 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article (currently) says that "The 9/11 Commission states in its final report that the nineteen hijackers who carried out the attack were terrorists." That's cited, verifiable, and relevant. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: The reader, does not need the help of the 9/11 Commission to figure out that the attackers are terrorists. The assertion can be made by the article that Al-Quaida is a terrorist organization without the help of the 9/11 Commission. Please stop re-inserting the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. -- Pinktulip 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an important and relevant fact that should appear prominently. I support its inclusion in the introduction. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the reader need the Warren Commission to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald was an "assasin"? No. Does the reader need the corresponding Commissions of the Challenger/Columbia shuttle loses to tell him that those events were "disasters" and "accidents"? No. So also, the reader does not need this Comission's word of "terrorist". The reader can figure it out for himself. -- Pinktulip 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not find your analogies persuasive. Leaving out relevant details to avoid any mention of the 't' word does not give us commendable brevity, it gives us an incomplete article. Bending over backwards to avoid using the word "terrorist" is not the path to neutrality. If you have citations from some notable and verifiable source saying that they were not terrorists, but instead gallant freedom-fighters, give us a source and we can consider including it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Bill Harrison: Let us take this scenario:

  1. It is 9/12. You have full information about what happened prior to and on 9/11 and your job was to report what happened on 9/11. The Commission has not yet happened and you are not required to provide historical context of a forward-looking nature. Under those circumstances, how should the first two paragraphs lead section read? I suggest that, under those circumstances, the first two paragraphs should not mention the 9/11 Commision because it has not yet happened. I suggest further that this is how the paragraphs should read now and from now on.
  2. Five years have passed and then you add a third paragraph about the aftermath without changing the first two paragraphs at all.
  3. Ten years have passed and it is now time to update the article again. You are considering updating the first two paragraphs, even though you had full infomration at the time you wrote those two paragraphs. You are thinking about adding the phrase "...which later lead to..." but you want to do minimal change, again, because you did have full information at that time. Which phrase, if either, do you chose to add:
  • "...which later lead to two wars..."
  • "...which later lead to a 9/11 commision to calling the attackers terrorists..."

We currently keep the mention of two wars to the thrird paragraph, but you keep inserting the 9/11 commission into the second paragraph. I think that this represents a lack of perspective on what is historically Important. The 9/11 Commission happened much later than 9/11 and merely collected information and submitted a report. If it provides new facts about what happened earlier, then incorporate those specific facts. If you want to add that "NYC/USA/World was terrorized to some quantifiable degree", then that would not be incorrect, but the reader can probably figure out this somewhat vague notion on their own, based on the other, more specific facts. I am going to wait another day and then I am going to remove your added reference to the 9/11 Commssion again because it does not fit into the historical narrative. -- Pinktulip 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In spite of your insistence, I still think these facts need to be featured prominently in the introduction, for the reasons I have presented above. If your position is that it must be removed and replaced with your version, I don't see that there's much room for discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist" words occur 30 times

Using the word "terrorist", "terror", etc. occur thirty times in the article; that is more than enough. It is merely a label and provides little information to the reader. 30 times is more than enough. It occurs once in the lead section and that is sufficient. -- Pinktulip 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia guidelines:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are.

I agree with pinktulip that adding 9/11 Commision to the lead section adds bloat without important new information. What is the problem with word "militant"? What is the specific need why it should be replaced with the word "terrorist"?

I'd kindly appreciate if all the contributors introduced themselves into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia should not be a political battlefield, so please don't start edit wars against clearly stated policies and guidelines - instead, discuss about your opinions in the talk pages. Thanks. Klaam 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And the "Al-Qaeda" article, in its own right, demonstrates that the organization is a terrorist organization, so no further explaination in this page is needed. -- Pinktulip 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If another article is written poorly, I don't think that's a reason to use controversial terms in this article. How does the Al-Qaeda article "demonstrate that the organization is a terrorist organization"? Klaam 13:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Al-Qaeda article needs improvement, then please contribute what you have to offer. I still assert that it is the lack of our ability to briefly and efffectly summarize these other articles that causes this article to bloat and be of low quality. -- Pinktulip 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The descriptive word is terrorist. It is verifiable and it is cited. This is the Wikipedia policy. It is necessary to label the 19 hijackers as terrorists. There is a problem with the word militant -- it is inaccurate. What's been called bloat appears to me to be a smokescreen in order to prevent the article from describing their acts [to] make clear what they are. (quoting the guideline already mentioned) patsw 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patsw: Your comment in your most recent change to the Talk page "Perhaps it should occur 35 times" helps to highlight the problem. Such repeatative usage of a word in a historical narrative is a warning sign of a problem. It might not really be problem, but it might be a problem with balance, it might be POV. It is not hard to see how such a repetative usage leads to bloat. If you really think that there is some kind of smokescreen, then please just cut through it an point out what it is that is behind that smokescreen and that is so Important. -- Pinktulip 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is best to not use numerous alternative words to descripe the same entity, as that would be confusing...except in different tones of voice...take for example the American Civil War...the Northern forces are called:Yankees, federals, and Union...the Southern forces are called Rebels, Confederates,Southerners, etc...and there are other terms I have found. To the outside person that is unfamiliar with the situation, this terms, when spred out in an article can become confusing. This is an article about an event that happened in the U.S., and since the vast majority of media, the U.S. government and citizens of the U.S. believe that the actions of the hijackers was terrorism, then that is within the balance of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, where it also states that the majority viewpoint need not be removed to give undue weight to the extreme minority [134]...as a point in that passage, it clear states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I understand that some extreme elements find the term terrorist to be pejorative...but it is the extreme minority viewpoint, and at best, deserves only a passing comment here, or to needs to be relegated to a subarticle.--MONGO 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not math or science where such consistent terminology might be best. This is human history where each day and each person and each event is unique. Parallels can be drawn, but each event is unique. If we could simply derive 9/11 from a bunch of definitions and axioms and theorems, then that wold make the job easier, but that simply is not the case. I think that most readers of history prefer to see some breadth of vocabulary in the narrative so that they can form their own opinion based on the reported facts and the range of terms used to describe the complex and varied events. Again, the word "terrorist" does not convey a great deal of specific information about specifically what happened. The reader would prefer a more specific term for some fo the participants, such as "hijacker" interspersed with the T-word, so immediately, using the same word in a monotonous fashion again breaks down. -- Pinktulip 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The uniqueness of the events of 9/11 present the greatest opportunity in human history to indeed use the term terrorism without anyone aside from the extreme fringe to be in disagreement. I recognize we are writing for the world, but this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and it need not adopt the extreme minority viewpoint at the expense of reality.--MONGO 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Our "opportunity" is when a reader bothers to even try to read this article. Our job is to inform the reader about what happened. Using the word "terrorist" as much or more than is in the current article does that job, but the results fall solidly in the realm of mediocrity. -- Pinktulip 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A terrorist is not a necessarily also a militant...militants do not necessarily engage in terrorism. This is the English language version of Wikipedia...and in the English speaking world the overwhelming vast majority of news sources worldwide, the U.S. Government, most governments of Europe, even asia and elaswhere cosnider the actions of the hijackers to be terrorism...the actions of all hijackers almost definitely fits this term also...as I said, this was a severe hijacking...the planes were used as bombs and it was planned that way...the extremist fringe minority does not get equal footing in article space to minimize factual terminology and definitions. I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of terrorism could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers.--MONGO 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mongo: My only interest is in seeing this article achieve the Featured Article status. I assert that any Wikipedia article (other than, of course, the Terrorism article and its ilk) that attempts to present present itself as a historical narrative and uses "terrorist" (and its derivatives) more than thirty times in the one article, given the current arbitrary limit of 32 KB for article size will not achieve Featured Article status in the forseeable future. I suggest you look at the works of this teenager: User:Lord Emsworth . Note that he has produced many Featured Articles and rarely found the need to use the "terrorist" words despite that fact that he was frequently writing about people engaged in warfare. -- Pinktulip 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. The best way to achieve featured article status is to be factual in evidence and in terminology. I think we would be selling out to the minoity view if we used terminology that is weaselly...Lord Elmsworth's articles are impressive...his future is bright for sure. Regardless, none of them are discussing a contemporary event of this magnitude and or of this experience. I've seen the arguments that the Bombing of dresden was terrorism, that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan are terrorism...I say fine...put that in those articles then...but the fact remains that no other term better fits the description of what we are discussing here, in THIS article, than terrorism. Militant doesn't work, nor infidel, enemy combatant, freedom fighter, soldier, etc. If you are so concerned about this becoming a FA, then work on trimming about 10 to 15 KB off the article, and it needs about 20 more references anyway if it's going to remain this huge.--MONGO 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can reword the article to eliminate the need for the word to be used so often, or any descriptive word to appear so often. That should give you a project here. Remove the need for the use of the word that appears so abundantly by rewriting sentnces to that the word doesn't have to be there. Bear in mind that it's still going to be there though so it's complete removal I oppose completely, but as an effort to work on this, I'll support the rephrasing of sentences in some sections so that no descriptive word is necessary...that will make veryone happy I think.--MONGO 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mongo: Lord Em wrote about people involved in life-or-death struggles involving total warfare where the stakes involved were often a matter of national survival. Many atrocities and other acts occurred that, compared to 9/11, could much more easily qualify as terrorism. Your notion of magnitude seems to lack historical perspective. Those events were, in fact, of much greater magnitude in terms of the number of fatalities and the stakes involved. Those events were not televized, but many of the acts were clearly designed to terrorize, yet Lord Em rarely resorts that phrase. -- Pinktulip 09:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing different things so don't take them out of context. I give a little in my last comment and that isn't enough. Obviously you want the term terrorist removed from here and that aint gonna happen. I've looked through and read many of those articles over the past year and the word terrorism doesn't fit in most cases anyway.--MONGO 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reader fatigue" with the word terrorist will take a back seat to accuracy in describing the people who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001. patsw 14:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As I already pointed out: Lord Em achieved accurracy w/o excessive use of the word, even though he could have defended his choice to use it a great deal. You should really ask yourself: What does he have you you have not got? I suuggest that he, despite his youth, has a larger vocabulary and a n ability to uee it properly. -- Pinktulip 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that your comment is a personal attack so you need to read about that for future reference WP:NPA...our vocabularies are fine and again, none of his articles are compariable. The word terrorist stays as that is the best definition to fit the actions.--MONGO 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that there are people who love and respect patsw just exactly because of who he is. No one seems to disagree with the suggestion that his vocabulary is smaller. Perhaps that limitation is what makes his Soul him so endearing to us all. It does not make him any less of a person in our eyes or in God's eyes. It just keeps him from being able to produce a Featured Article. I love him. We all love him. If I could, I would give him a hug, right now. You love him, do you not, Mongo? Or is it MONGO? Anyway, please write a message, Mongo, that says you love patsw. I am beginning to have my doubts with you. Just a simple message, Mongo, saying "I love patsw". And maybe that you would give him a hug also. Nothing sexual, of course. -- Pinktulip 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I love everybody! I disagree with your comment that patsw has a small vocabulary. What purpose does your other comment "It just keeps him from being able to produce a Featured Article" serve. Maybe he has a featured article and doesn't brag about it...maybe he doesn't want to write a featured article...but definitely, you owe him a big apology absolutely. Sooner, the better.--MONGO 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(removed long-ish joke apology).
What is this all about? Why is it HERE? Not sure it even belongs there but it should be in patsw's talk page, but not here for sure. I'm inclined to remove this in all honesty.--MONGO 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

9-11 was a conspiracy

I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of conspiracy could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers 69.231.8.216 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and try to get a feel for the consensus there. Thanks. El_C 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I misread that. Still, I felt the addition suffered from some issues. My latest changes are here. Thanks. El_C 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of teenagers looking to boost some pairs of Nikes from Wal-Mart is a conspiracy as well. What's the point? patsw 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, "conspiracy" is a far more meaningful, accurate and appropriate word than "set", "group" or "series", the three words which have been inserted to replace it. Trying to compare two teenagers stealing shoes with (at least) 20 terrorists conspiring for years and succeeding in killing thousands and destroying $billions in property, this is a vacuous comparison.

If you don't use "set", "group" or "series" it's not just POV, it's bad English. The conspiracy preceded the attacks. Once the assault was underway, the four groups or sets of hijackers could no longer conspire. Ruby 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To me the part about the conspiracies is incredibly biased. It basically says that the theories are put forward by those that hate the government or even America (Gods own nation iself!) or are just trying to get money of it. In my eyes, that is nowhere near neutral. JS 15 February 2006

Comparison with Antietam

I have noticed the edits and reverts, concerning comparisons of the 9/11 death toll with those of the Battle of Antietam, during the Civil War. I think some clarifications are needed:

  1. I don't think that Rmmbrhllwn / 68.185.250.128 / MI6mole quite understands what the term casualty means. Casualites include fatalities, as well as # wounded.
    1. The Battle of Antietam, which occurred on September 17, 1862, resulted in 3,620 deaths (both sides), not 20,000 as was stated in this article.
      1. The Battle of Gettysburg occurred over three days, with 6,655. I don't know how many occurred on each of the days, but probably not as many as 2,986.
      2. The Battle of Shiloh occurred over two days, with 3,477 deaths. Again, probably not as many as 2,986 were killed on either of those particular days.
  2. I also think making a comparison between military deaths during war and civilian deaths during a terrorist attacks, doesn't fit in the article, yet alone the introduction.
-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but bear in mind that those figures are not accurate for confederate troops and in some cases, only count federal dead. Regardless, there is no need to evn have the comparison in the article anyway...it serves no purpose except to make the event of 9/11 seem less important than it was.--MONGO 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hijackers

Another user insisted that this topic was to be created. I added a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) disputing the claim of the "nineteen hijackers". I see no problem adding this link. Do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.180 (talk • contribs)

I also remember the doubts about some of the hijackers in the days following the attacks... I think you're referring to Waleed_al-Shehri. However, the reports of surviving 'hijackers' were later discounted, as a mix-up involving names — very common names in Saudi Arabia. The following article (and quote) is cited in the Waleed al-Shehri article on Wikipedia:
"...at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain." - quote from (Spiegel online, September 8, 2003)
-Aude (talk | contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. you can sign your comments by adding ~~~~.


It should be noted that some of the "hijackers" are ALIVE and well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm --Tyler rurdon That was dated the 23 of September, 2001, when news was sketchy. What does the 911 commission have to say about it? Do you honestly think that hasn't been resolved? --Mmx1 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrations

It should be noted that there were demonstrations all over the world in protest against these terrorist acts. Some information should be noted. As a sidenote, even as I regard the Yussuf Islam issue important I do not think it belongs to this article. Get-back-world-respect 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I second both these points; the Yussuf Islam issue was in fact what I came to this talk page to write about. Also Yassir Arafat's push for Palestinian schoolchildren to donate blood, while totally absurd, was definitely part of the international reaction. --Rschmertz 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall there was once in this article a mention of demonstrations supporting the 9/11 terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria. The mention was removed since the person adding it was unable or unwilling to provide a citation or other verification of the event. Information that can be verified is always welcome. patsw 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I am just going to help you find the relevant pages:
So...my message is: You are always welcome to REVIEW THE EXISTING WORK before you go adding redundant and jumbled references on the main 9/11 page (thereby condemnning it to never becoming a Featured Article) to things that are, oh yes, very yummy and sensational, but that you seem to only vaguely recall. -- Pinktulip 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's put an end to the charade here and now.

It is now beyond ridiculous to have this site including so much proven disinformation. Wikipedia will be judged by how soon it came to the same conclusion millions are now coming to--9-11 was an elaborate fraud involving the controlled demolition of a set of aging, asbestos-ridden office buildings that contained investigative files from the SEC and a whole lot of other stuff that was destroyed. There is ZERO evidence for the involvement of any of the alleged hijackers, and bin Laden did NOT ever admit guilt (see fake audio tapes, fake terror experts, and fake arab news networks. Members of the Project for a New American Century, a collection of radical neoconservatives, planned and executed the attacks after stealing the election in 2000, using the "attacks" as a pretext for wars of economics and geopolitics. These are FACTS, people. Open your eyes and we can save what's left of our country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.28.241 (talk • contribs) . (*sigh*)

Nearly every crime can be looked at from two differing, but equally important facets. First, the investigator will thoroughly examine the evidence, looking for clues in the evidence that may point to the perpetrator. Secondly, the crime must be looked at within the context of which they were committed. Perhaps the most important question regarding September 11th is cuo bono -- who benefits? Anybody that does research beyond the hard-hitting, objective journalism of CNN will come to realize that the sheer number of inconsistencies -- the time of the collapse (significance: recall Newton's third law and the free-fall speed of the collapse), the mysterious collapse of WTC7, the statistic-defying symmmetry of both collapses, numerous reports of secondary-devices [explosives] (including audio testimony, video interviews, and siesmic graphs), the unwillingness of Administration officials to testify under oath, the initial blocking of an investigation into the collapses, ... -- weighs heavily against the complete official account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.32.123 (talk • contribs)

"recall Newton's third law..." Good advice. Tom Harrison Talk 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, why hasn't ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FNC, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, BBC (any one of them), PBS, or ANY newspaper. If this was correct, I'm sure anyone of them would want to break this story, as it would be the biggest story ever. If you know about, I'm sure the people at the Norfolk Times knows, and I'm just curious as to why this hasn't been story 1 since they uncovered it. Its easy to call something fake (audio tapes of bin Laden) when you have already chosen what you beleive. There is already a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory page, I suggest you make use of it's talk page. Squiggyfm 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here to judge the facts, simply to state them. Some of the objections raised by the 'conspiracy' theorists are valid, such as why did the steel girders break in a fire that may have been intense (~1000-1500F) for 20 minutes when steel has a significantly higher melting point than that and is crafted to withstand fire of these temperatures, whether there are insulators present or not. One might argue that few buildings have had airliners crash into them, but the WTC was made to be highly redundent in support and the aluminum/fiber construction of airliners are weak compared to the steel girders of the WTC, how many beams could one airplace possibly take out? Additionally, WTC7 never had an airplane incident and still fell... is this too the result of a fire? No building in the history of steel-framed buildings has ever fallen as a result of just a fire, why suddenly WTC7? Sorry if you feel that I am simply catering to 'conspiracy' theories here, but these remain valid questions. Wikipedia was not founded to blindly follow official statements when seeking the facts of the matter. Maintain NPOV, temperate prose, and cite your sources; as long as the evidence stands on its own and spurious claims are withheld (e.g. Bush did it!), I see no reason why facts should be shunned. Did I mention cite your sources? Nhandler 08:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What facts? Is there any proof of controlled demolition? No, none. These other steel frame structures you speak of, were they hit by wide body jets flying at 500 to almost 600 miles per hour? No, they weren't. As far as WTC7, were any of these other steel frame structures that have never fallen due to fire also near the destabilizing effects of 1 million tons of debris that had fallen up to 1,350 feet? No. There are dozens of web sites postulating the same straw man arguments and not a one of them has any proof of controlled demolition. As stated by Squiggyfm, the press would have a field day if there was evidence of controlled demolition. Furthermore, not all those that did the investigations into this situation were on the federal doll...what purpose would hiding evidence of controlled demolition do for them. This argument has been going on for over 4 years now and I have yet to see one piece of evidence that would prove that the buildings were imploded. It's all just a bunch of innuendo and speculation.--MONGO 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof or not, WP should still include what people believe. WP should not be he judge but simply state the fact. And the fact is that there are a distinct minority who belive they have the evidence to proove that WTC was demoed. They may be wrong. We are not skilled enough to find out, and if we did it would be original research. But WP should include this information. Didn't Jimbo said something like "we can write about what people believe"?. There are plenty of articles with hypotheses and theories that has not been proved e.g. religious articles, various physic theories etc. --EyesAllMine 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't write about hypothetical opinions here unless we make it clear that this viewpoint is held by a fringe minority. The fact is this distinct minority has no proof whatsoever....none.--MONGO 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there needs to be a sub-article titled "Conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks". --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some more possible names:
  • Alternative theories concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks
  • Non-mainstream theories concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks
  • Creative theories regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks
--StuffOfInterest 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean like the 9/11 conspiracy theories linked in the infobox? Rmhermen 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That works. :) If it doesn't already, perhaps the main article should have a small section on conspiracy theories with a "{{main|}}" reference to send people out to the sub-article. --StuffOfInterest 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I think a link in the infobox is more than enough. We shouldn't burry common conspiracy theories, but we shouldn't propagate them either. (And as a long time editor of the conspiracy theories page, I can tell you that that page is one of the hardest to keep NPOV because of the zeal of the theorists.) --Quasipalm 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is more that the facts aren't known, so it's a debate with 2 sides presenting their cases, and people are split into believing either side. If you look at both sides, neither can be dismissed. The US Gov provided some interesting facts, like the 9/11 commission report and various reports, and can't be dismissed. On the other hand, the critics have also provided lots of facts, like the fact that it is physically impossible for fuel to burn hot enough to break the steel that was used in the towers, that the hole shown in the picture of the Pentagon before the collapse is simply too small for a jet to fit in, and the nearby windows are still visible and unbroken. The point is that it's a debate, yet this article shows it as if the Gov' story was the facts and the other side was just disgruntled critics, which I think it wrong. It should give the same weight to both sides. Elfguy 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    Split? I'd say there are a few misguided folks that would believe anything the conspiracy theorists are selling. The hole in the buildings is not too small for the planes to "fit into"? No it isn't...the south tower of the WTC had a tear 164 feet long (wingspan 157), none of the reports have stated that the steel needed to melt...it didn't need to...all it needed was to be heavily damaged and heated enough to bend or fatigue it...here are some engineer discussions that have nothing to do with the federal version:[135]

[136] [137] [138] [139]--MONGO 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He was talking about the hole in the Pentagon. But I don't think gasoline-filled aluminum (wings) traveling at several hundred miles and hour would leave much of a dent in solid stone. The wings got sheared off. And as for the pictures of the windows not being damaged around the impact zone of the Pentagon (doesn't really matter since fires were raging all around them), that can be attributed to the fact of that side of the Pentagon had recently been upgraded with "explosion-resistant" glass. And thats what they did, resisted the explosion.Squiggyfm 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unawnsered questions: [[140]] [[141]] Ariev 18:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2006

This is interesting, but it's not news. It's a press release. They're self-proclaimed experts. They wrote this themselves for distribution. Perhaps their claims are true, but this isn't an actual news piece written by journalists, it's a press release written by the people making these claims talking in the third person. What I find really interesting is that Yahoo News seems to have picked it up as news. --Mr. Billion 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds, one of the named people in the group has stated that aircrafts had nothing to do with the collapse of the world trade center...the isn't a single expert in this group that knows the first thing about controlled demolition...[142] and here is a discussion of the largest building ever imploded by experts that do implosions for a living. The task of doing controlled demolition on the WTC would have been one of a magnitude several times greater than the largest building every imploded...not to mention the coverup. Company profile and discussion of the world record largest implosion [143].--MONGO 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Go to video google, and type 9/11....the first hit is a one-hour 'all-facts, no nonesense' documentary detailing just how impossible it is that 9/11 occurred as we are now being told it did.

They don't claim to be experts in controlled demolition; they simply show you that there *WERE* multiple explosions level by level and that many of the onlookers said it sounded like and looked like a controlled demolition exercise.

seeking consensus on adding external link

Hey there crusaders. Great, 3 words in and it's already potentially loaded language. *laughs weakly*

just quickly, i haven't read the archived discussions but i have read the article and this page in its entirety. Apologies for those bothered by a topic already covered being brought up again, if that's the case, but having considered that may be the case i think it merits further consideration.

I think that http://st911.org/ should be included as an external link.

I know that many will say that it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracies page, but i think that its content is in the conspiracies page. Adding it as a link recognizes that there is an increasingly divergent opinion about the facts of the tower collapses. Wikipedia is great in that its content is factually supported as best as possible (recent study indicated that Wikipedia is generally at least as reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica on science and nature articles) but also able to incorporate new information. 3 of the papers published by PhDs at the site i'm suggesting respond to the findings of the 9/11 Commission. They report interviews with highly regarded demolition experts, they add additional information about certain events in the lead up to and the follow up of the WTC collapse.

They do have a wide base of skills and experience within their membership, and if there is objection to adding a link to their site on the grounds that some of its content or links it provides are not as well supported as others, then i believe there should be a link from this Wikipedia article to at least the same article as linked to from the WTC7 Wikipedia entry which is available on the ST911 site.

I am not starting any argument here based on things which I've read, watched, listened to, or considered and i don't feel i need to or that anybody needs to take a contrary 'raving loonie conspiracy' stance. The article would be more complete if the link was included in the External Links section, or if Scholars for 911 truth was hyperlinked when it's mentioned in the article, although that would then have to go to a Wiki about them before linking.Holigopoly 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a judgment on the validity of the website or the group's arguments, but simply the list of links on September 11, 2001 attacks is already very long, perhaps too long as-is. I think links should go on the most relevant sub-article. In this case, I think the best place for the link is Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where Scholars for 9/11 Truth is discussed. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SAMs

The second plane, Flight 175, hit at 9:03 and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Yet in 34 minutes between the two hits, surface-to-air missiles were completely ignored and they had to scramble fighters from miles away to try to intercept Flight 77? I've always wondered about this. Did Washington believe that Flight 77 was somehow different from the others and that it WASN'T going to be a suicide run? Why weren't surface-to-air missiles used to take down Flight 77?--Secret Agent Man 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably because SAMs are designed to travel short distances. Even the most advanced SAMs used by the US Navy (Standard missile) that we know about maxes out at about 90 nautical miles. The liklihood of having lots of SAMs on the east coast ready to launch during peace time is probably pretty small.
Also, my guess would be that the plan would be to try and incapacitate the plane as a missle, without killing everyone on board. This kind of a mission could only be carried out by manned aircraft.
This is all conjecture of course.  :-) -Quasipalm 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there were no SAMs to launch. US air defense has relied almost exclusively on fighter intercept since the mid 1970's when most of the Nike-Hercules sites were deactivated. Patriot batteries are generally deployed overseas or at training areas in the US. There have been reports of shorter range SAM's (Hawk or Stinger) being deployed on or around key structures in Washington since 9-11, but I have to specific information on that. These days, longer range SAM's are intended more for anti-missle than anti-aircraft use. ClaudeMuncey 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Patsw and MONGO POVing this page again

I am not putting in 'scare' quotes. What do you mean by that? When I last asked for request for comment the consensus that came out of it was that terrorist word was undefined and too POV to use it (unless article is quoting USGOV) -- max rspct leave a message 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where was this consensus established, i.e. that the word terrorist was undefined and too POV to use in reference to the 19 highjackers? patsw 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Max, come on man. What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism...maybe the actions of the U.S. with using the atomic bombs on Japan or bombing Dresden was terrorism too...I don't care about that...we are editing an article about 9/11, not WWII. You just recently got through reverting the Terrorism article in which you reverted back to a version that clearly stated that Terrorism is "outside the bounds of conventional warfare" [144] and the hijackers actions were clearly just that. You don't like the U.S. or whatever, but cease this singling other editors out by name...it is borderline personal attack.--MONGO 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is much abused word and is currently being applied (by USGOV, media and their defenders) in away that is much broader than violence against innocent civilians. We have a big problem if you are going to equate terrorism with unconventional warfare. Also , the WTC attack was an attack on the economy of USA > it was not deliberatly targeted at innocent civilians. When it comes to US-sponsered terrorism (and don't forget past genocides and the torture going on in Guantanamo bay right now) I don't even have to mention the atomic/fire bombings. What about Gen Wesley Clark and his bombings of infrastructure and bridges in Serbia (to undermine serbian economy and moral) during the Kosovo War - are you going to tell me they were terrorist actions or not? On those hi-tech images of bombs going into those bridges it was clear that civilian traffic was on them and the results were as dramatic and horrific as the sequence of events on 9/11... tho I am sure US TV networks weren't pitching their tents next to those parts of Serbia etc etc that were being bombed. My main concern is the blanket use of that term (terrorism) within this article including the generalising description of Indonesian and Philipino Islamic movements. As for calling someone by their usename ...well what are usernames for if you can't alert people on talkpages...? If you keep making threats against me MONGO (a dishonourable way of trying to put people off editing this page) I will go for arbitration with you about that AND this article. Perhaps you are just overzealous. As for unconventional warfare - don't tell me the USA hasn't engaged in this as you know perfectly well they have. Last week US defence chiefs unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism: "..require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare.." See America's long war -- max rspct leave a message 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


To avoid generalizations, I think the word "Islamofascist terrorist" is the appropriate one, because it's specific and non-sweeping. It doesn't try to paint all believers as terrorists, nor even those with Islamofascist beliefs -- it identifies those which are the culprits of the 9/11 attacks -- those with radical, militant, religious beliefs who also couple these beliefs with violent action. We are not talking about all terrorists in this article, nor are we talking about conventional insurgent activity, which is far too broad for the scope of this article. It's a specific non-judgmental term. Morton devonshire 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


You must be joking yeah? How is Islamofascist terrorist not a sweeping label - Please don't troll here! Lets be factual, unbias and not used recently invented terms hey! -- max rspct leave a message 13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
See WP:AGF. Not trying to do anything except be descriptive, because what we are talking about here is a specific group of terrorists. Looks like you're on your own with this issue. User:Zen-master fought a similar cheese-stands-alone battle on the term "conspiracy theory," and wouldn't give it up -- the Administrators finally banned him for one year because he wouldn't pay attention to consensus, and kept insisting on his POV. I didn't have anything to do with that, just hoping that you won't get stuck on attacking the term "terrorist", which seems to be well-defined and accepted as a neutral term. What we need is a term that narrowly describes the people that flew the airplanes into the towers, but large enough to include their aiders and abettors -- Islamofascist terrorists seems appropriate, or simply terrorists. Wikipedia has already decided that the word "terrorist" is a neutral term -- please consider accepting this Wikipedia consensus. Morton devonshire 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about conspiracy theories. When is this terrorism as neutral word on wikipedia then? I can only find this> Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Also, see this from terrorism article >
"The definition of a terrorist is so fraught with problems that Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of Great Britain was forced into providing a list of "approved terrorists" in an attempt to pass his anti-terrorist bill. There was clearly no point in passing legislation to ban people from applauding terrorists if some national and international heroes were not on his list."
Intersting huh? The word is not properly defined and should not be used. Throughout the apartheid years the ANC constantly referred to as terorist by the National Party government. And look where we're at now. -- max rspct leave a message 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Quit playing games with the language. Just because you aren't sure where the boundaries are doesn't mean you throw your hands up and say the term is meaningless. Similarly, there's great difficulty defining what a Limited War is in the sphere of military history. There's debate around the fringes, but it's pretty clear that Vietnam was a limited war and WWII was not. It's pretty clear that the 9-11 hijackers are terrorists.

--Mmx1 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I keep getting Appeal to emotion, Appeal to motive and Ad hominem - "oh come on Max" "Quit playing games.." etc. Will someone please explain why 'terrorists' should be applied to this article ..while without refering to death, disatser or USGOV view. All MONGO can come up with (besides trying to equate it with unconventional warfare) is "What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism..." Where's the explanation? Terrorism is much undefined and contentious and therefore should not be used in the article except when presenting the USGOV (and their supporters) view of events. -- max rspct leave a message 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you not follow the link I provided in which you reverted back to the definition that terrorism is outside the bounds of conventional warfare. That, is also, ipso facto, the definition essentially embraced by the UN. It's getting tiresome with my username being tossed around, so I'm going to ask this to stop...thank you.--MONGO 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as appeals to motive, and ad hominem, what is the title of this section? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with..." What word do the governments and newspapers of these countries use? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? So newspapers say something is so.. then that's truth right? No room for unbiasness..? The NYtimes says such and such so it must be true? I am not saying that 9/11 hijackers have not been called terrorists. I am not saying that I do not believe they were terrorists. I am just saying that this article should be unbias and take into account both sides of this war without having one view dominating the article. This is happening with the use of the word terrorist. As I have said before Reuters and BBC have preferenced 'insurgents' over terrorists'. -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


see these> Use of word in Canadian news, BBC actions, BBC again, [145] ..oh and of course CNN backs you up >[146] -- max rspct leave a message 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked you what the newspapers and governments of those countries call them. I think the New York Times is published in New York, though maybe they have a far east edition. And I did not ask you about the 9/11 terrorists, I asked you about the terrorists with whom the Philippine and Indonesian governments are having conflicts. Anyway, If you don't know, as I don't know, what the local people call them, maybe it would be useful to find out. You say the newspapers' choice doesn't determine what's correct, then you point to the BBC and Reuters and say we should follow their example - Why? Tom Harrison Talk 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This article deals with a historical event for which the relevant facts are not likely to change. The article and the talk page are not a discussion board on American imperialism, semantics, or compare and contrast the style guides of the BBC with the Associated Press. If you want to argue that the 19 were insurgents and not terrorists, then explain it on the basis of it being the most accurate word descriptive of their actions of September 11,2001, and attempt to establish a new editing consensus for this article. patsw 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is relevant what the local governments and press call the people they are plagued with. The term I recommend to refer to the terrorists in the Philippines and Indonesia is Islamic extremist terrorists. This is technically accurate and, I think, supported by use in the local media. I don't think anything involving Islamofascist is likely to be stable, is probably not used in the Phillipines or Indonesia, and is probably less technically correct in this context. Still, I prefer Islamofascist terrorists to insurgents, which is not an accurate description. Unless I've misunderstood, none of this discussion is about what to call the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamic extremist terrorists is perfectly fine with me. Shall we vote and end this? Morton devonshire 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Islamofascism" is a ridiculous phrase. --Mr. Billion 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism has been tabled. Islamic extremist terrorists is still perfectly fine with me. Shall we vote and end this? I vote against the term "insurgent". I vote for the term "Islamic extremist terrorists." Morton devonshire 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
With all respect to Morton, I'm not sure this is the kind of thing we should vote on. I changed it in the article; let's see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Islamic extremist terrorists" is redundant. Just use "Islamic terrorists." --Cberlet 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Move sentence

"The anniversary of September 11, 2001 was dedicated as 'Patriots day'." Can someone move or remove this from the intro? My browser can't edit the intro without chopping off the end of the page. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Worst Case Scenario

What historical articles of any encyclopedia have a hypothetical "worst case scenario" to describe what didn't happen?

Even thought it's an authoritative source doing the speculating, it doesn't alter the fact that it is expressing speculation as opposed to an account of what actually happened. patsw 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If a 60-passenger-capacity school bus crashes, and there's no kids in it, that's relevant. It helps place the incident in context. Morton devonshire 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll play along and imagine for a moment we're a newspaper and not an encyclopedia: please elaborate how, after mentioning the number of actual victims, it's relevant in a news story to mention the hypothetical death toll if all seats were occupied? Why not calculate a hypothetical higher death toll based on the number who should have been inside the World Trade Center and Pentagon but actually were not because of assignment, sickness, or vacation? Or the additional deaths if One World Trade Center (i.e. the North Tower) fell over on the World Financial Center or Two World Trade Center (i.e. the South Tower) had toppled on the buildings from Broadway to Pearl Street.
Also, I looked for actual news accounts of school bus accidents and guess what, none of the stories mentioned the seating capacity of the bus. I guess I own you one for suggesting an example that supports the point I'm trying to make. patsw 01:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Ow, you got me. Score: Pedanticism 1, Morton 0  : ) Morton devonshire 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Pov and split

This aricle is pov. It claims the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory to be factual, something diputed all over the world, even by Bush's former economy minister. All factual statements of the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be NPOVed and the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be split to its own article, just att all other 9/11 conspiracy theroies are on other articles --Striver 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is simply absurd. The page mentions that some dispute the overwhelming evidence implicating Bin Laden, and provides links.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that is great. But POV. The article champions the theory as factual, and doing so is pov as long as it is contested by a notable amount of people. --Striver 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It is factual, and well supported. Disputes are appropriately noted already. By the way, what's the tag for "Delete - POV fork?" Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not factual, the bin laden conspiracy theory is contested, and all the "evidence" it supports itself on is also contested. You may belive it is factual, and you are free to do so. I belive other theories to be factual. This article CLAIMIN one or another theory is factual is POV. It needs to present all of them as theories, and factualy claim that the Bin Laden theory is the one most people regard as credibl--Striver 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)e, and most people belive to be factual.

The article properly satisfies verifiability, and citing sources policies, and appropriately notes alternative theories. There is no need to slap a POV tag on the entire article. And the article is already split into multiple articles, which are accessible from this main article and through the template TOC. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If there is something specific about the article you feel is POV, let's discuss it. But, I don't know what you meed by "a notable amount of people". It is very widely, overwhelmingly accepted (and cited in the article) that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Other theories are noted in the article, but are they accepted by "a notable amount of people"? what do you mean by "notable"? We need something more specific and verifiable, with citations from reliable sources, than "a notable amount of people". -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
the article does a very good job at Verifying that most people belive in this theory. But that does NOT mean it is NPOV to claim it to be factual. My problem is NOT that this theory is the most widely accpeted, and even belived to be factual by many. My problem is that that wikipedia CLAIMS it IS factual, a clear breach in NPOV.

I will give you a list of educated and notable people disputing the theory, i cant do it from here. Ill return with a list in about 4-5 houres. --Striver 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the old "NPOV means we can only state that some people say the earth is round while others believe it is flat" argument. Not true. Not what NPOV means. This is postmodernism on crack.--Cberlet 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This is not comaparable with the flat earth theory. We dont have congress womans and university teachers and ex-NYPD people beliving the earth is flat.--Striver 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK for the guideline on why 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory should be, and shortly will be deleted. patsw 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the allegation of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory being a POV fork. This article is MAINLY about the attack, not about any eventual theories about how and why. That is easly demostrated by the desicion of removing all OTHER theories to its separate article. But i wont pursue that, its better to me to focus on another angle:

This article states the most popular conspiracy theory to be factual. That is POV. I want that NPOVed. --Striver 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory. It is a factual account, well supported by verifiable citations. To the extent that there is disagreement, the article addresses that and refers the reader to other pages for more information. I'm not even convinced that, as the tag says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't think the mere fact that someone says, "That's POV" means the article has to be tagged until they're satisfied. That interpretation would allow an unscrupulous editor (not you, speaking in general here) to hold any article hostage. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that this is a POV DISPUTE? Am i air to you?--Striver 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It takes more to tag an article than someone insisting that it be tagged. Otherwise, I could go to any article on Wikipedia and say, "That's POV! The tag stays until I'm satisfied that it is neutral." Surely you agree that the standard must be higher than that. Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Tom is 100% correct. Rather than tagging the article again and again, please point out specific instances where you feel the text passes judgment inappropriately. I don't agree that the conspiracy allegations (and accusers) are reputable enough to be mentioned anywhere outside of the CT section. There is no reason to allude to these theories by watering down every sentence in the article. The official account, news reports, the overwhelming majority of scientists, first-person reports, phone calls from the planes, and the international community all support the theory that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers were responsible for the attacks. Rhobite 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Bin Laden openly admits he orchestrated the whole thing. So the Bush administration says it's Bin Laden, scientists says it's Bin Laden and Bin Laden says their right. It would be POV to say it may not have been Bin Laden in spite of it. Celcius 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Admin Neutrality A Myth?

The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality. Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources. Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins? Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. --Striver 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Admins are held to the same editing standards as every other editor. If you have concerns about conduct by a Wikipedia user, please follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Please remember that admins are people too, and it would be unreasonable to believe they should be perfect in all ways. Everyone has made some mistakes at some point. Rhobite 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

List of people not accepting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory

  • Cite Please. His book critiques the intelligence community for failing to prepare and pickup the threat but does not purport alternative theories regarding the commission of the hijackngs.--Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Robert M. Bowman Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD and retired Lt. Col for United States Air Force, a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War
  • Former Air Force administrator with a mediocre political campaign attempting to petition onto the ballot for Congress in Florida. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lawyer Kristin Breitweiser is one of four widows who lost their husbands on 9/11 that formed a group known as the "Jersey Girls."
  • Andreas von Bülow is a former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service and former Minister for Research and Technology in the cabinet of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and for 25 years an SPD member of the German parliament
  • As has been corrected on his page, he was state-secretary in the Defense Ministry, not "assistant defense minister". Perhaps a German can elaborate on the difference. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
  • Tom Flocco is a Philadelphia-based independent investigative journalist and teacher who has written for American Free Press, From The Wilderness, Judicial Watch, Narco News, NewsMax.com, Scoop.co.nz and WorldNetDaily.
  • Rodger Herbst, bachelor of aeronautical and astronautical engineering and mechanical engineer
  • Jim Hoffman, software engineer
  • "In order to more easily research the many complex details of the September 11th attacks, Hoffman put together a collection of original hypertext pages of information. By developing a software tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, he was able to quickly navigate to any of its many pages. Originally developed as a research tool, the system later evolved into the 911-Research website.[1]"
  • In other words.....he put together a website. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens


You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --Striver 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And these people's opinions are already covered in a multitude of articles. Rhobite 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So? I didnt ask you to represent them, i said that... yeah, you read it. --Striver 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You are also misrepresenting the Zogby poll, which asked New Yorkers if they believed some US leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". The poll response has nothing to do with opinions on whether Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. The wording of the question isn't even specific to the WTC attacks, it only asks if leaders generally knew about attacks planned around September 11. And last I checked, we don't draw forensic conclusions based on opinion polls. Rhobite 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Rhobite. I'm so sick of people mis-representing this poll -- I see it all the time online and it drives me nuts. --Quasipalm 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not claim that any of the above claimed support for any conspiracy theory, i just claimed they did not agree with the official conspiracy theory.--Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The official theory is that neirth the Bush administration, nor the FBI, nor the CIA KNEW about it.

The people in the Zogby poll claimed they did not belive in that theory, instead they belived that they at LEAST knew about it and "they consciously failed to act". This article does not even MENTION that. a clear breach of NPOV. --Striver 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you're familiar with the 9/11 Commission report. The report acknowledged that there was general intelligence about major attacks planned around that time. I'm sure you already know that the report contains the 8/6/01 briefing memo to Bush, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". The report also accuses the intelligence agencies and law enforcement of failing to connect the dots in time. New Yorkers were probably referring to the intelligence failures when they answered "yes" to this extremely general question. You have no basis for assuming that New Yorkers believe in wild conspiracy theories, based on the wording of the question. Rhobite 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The report say they " to connect the dots in time", while people belive they "they consciously failed to act". It is a BIG difference between "not havin time" and "consciously failing". --Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Where has James Bamford denied that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? I've read a number of articles after doing a google search [147] and failed to find Bamford making the claim that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. patsw 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I found him in a wikipedia article. I read a bit about him, and i agree that he is a bit of a grey area, he only belived that the event was used as a pretext to attack Iraq, and that they decided to attack Iraq even while the pentagon was burning. Never mind him, forget James Bamford, my point still stands even without James Bamford and the zogby poll. --Striver 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Apparently an FBI agent in Phoenix knew one bit of info, another agent in Minneapolis had another piece of info, maybe some at the CIA had other info... but the government failed to coordinate the intelligence and connect the dots. This is verifiable and mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't know how Zogby worded the question, but this is what respondents were very likely referring to. To take that poll and say that half of New Yorkers do not think Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, is gross misrepresentation of the poll results. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont buy "likely ", "likely" is original research. Official theory: "not enogh time". Zogby answer: "consciously failed". Not even close to eachoter. --Striver 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing exactly what question respondents were asked and how it was worded, we can't imply anything from the poll. We don't know 100% what question they were responding to and how it was worded. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Opinion polls always report the exact wording of the question. This question asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". [148] Rhobite 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is geting to a sidetracked. I dont care what they belived they answered. My claim stands even if we totaly disregard the zogby poll. --Striver 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you understand the difference between a discussion board and editing the Wikipedia:
  • You can say whatever you want on a discussion board.
  • Here, your claims -- that is the content that you want to add -- need to backed up simultaneously by verifiable information. (i.e. what Bamford claims vs. what Striver claims Bamford claims)
  • Arguing is not editing.
Vagueness with respect to the claim regarding Bamford and the Zogby poll isn't moving consensus to your position. If you had completely and concisely presented what Bamford claims with a link for verification and the text of Zogby question with a verifiable link, you would have at least gained my interest because the editing focus would shift from your claims, to what Bamford claims and what Zogby polled. It's not about you. It's all about the primary and secondary source material presented to the editors. patsw 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bamford claim was vague, and a misstake to include it. It detracted from my credibility. The zogby poll is first hand verifiable. It asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". [149]

The answer was a 40-50 "yes" to that. Some tried to original research it to meaning something else than "they consciously failed to act" wheupon i stated that im not here to speculated what they could mean, im only intrested in the obvious statement. Further, i say that my point stands even if the two most ambigues evidence i brought are removed.

Dont bother with those two, it diverts the discussion from what i intended: To change the contains of this aritcle based on stating that the other views are not to be ignored. The other sources i brought are sufficient to support my claim, even withouth those two --Striver 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I brought 16 points. Two are criticized. 14 remain uncriticized. --Striver 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regroup

I readd my statment:

You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --Striver 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my statement, then: Rather than tagging the article again and again, please point out specific instances where you feel the text passes judgment inappropriately. I don't agree that the conspiracy allegations (and accusers) are reputable enough to be mentioned anywhere outside of the CT section. There is no reason to allude to these theories by watering down every sentence in the article. The official account, news reports, the overwhelming majority of scientists, first-person reports, phone calls from the planes, and the international community all support the theory that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers were responsible for the attacks. A very small group of people, most with no formal training in the scientific areas which they discuss, believe the U.S. government murdered thousands of its own citizens and somehow concealed this conspiracy from the public. Their theories are covered in the proper areas. Please read the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV for more information about why these people are not granted equal placement in this article. Rhobite 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i read it:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
  • In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

This means that if i can "easyly name prominent adherents", this view is "a viewpoint...held by a significant minority" and NOT by "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"

Lets see:

  • David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton
  • Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat and emeritus English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
  • Michael Meacher UK Minister of Environment
  • Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
  • Andreas von Bülow is a former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service and former Minister for Research and Technology in the cabinet of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and for 25 years an SPD member of the German parliament

Yes, it was fairly easy to find a:

  • chief prosecutor
  • Canadian diplomat
  • Professor at the University
  • Minister of Environment
  • economist
  • assistant defense minister


and more...

Thus: it "is held by a significant minority". Thus our view is a valid reason to not state the other view as factual.

--Striver 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


As is now, our theory is treated as a "tiny-minority", while it in fact is a "significant minority" view. --Striver 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They are a but a small number when compared to the thousands of researchers, investigators, engineers and specialists that were at ground zero and have examined the crash sites at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. Three of the ones you point out had no accessiblility to any of the evidence directly...they aren't even U.S. citizens. Does the group have even one expert on controlled demolition? Nope.--MONGO 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Even if they never left their houses, my argument stands: The view is held by a "significant minority", and not a "tiny minority".--Striver 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I did a google search for David Schippers [150] and failed to find Schippers making the claim that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. patsw 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents six weeks earlier which included the dates and targets of the attacks. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls.
[[151]]
I can't find anything on David Schippers. It's uncited in the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11, and I've marked it as needing citation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Try this, they are talking about Pearl Haribor, Oklahoma city bombing and every other thing that is usualy refered to as nut case theories:

DS: ....in Oklahoma City and, frankly, when I first heard the information, I just poo-pooed it, as did everybody else - they thought here comes another one of those crazy conspiracy theories, you know...

http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html

If you want the actual tape, i can try to find it, i have heard it several times.

Ask yourself: Why would David Schipperes talk to Alex Jones in the first place? --Striver 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actauly, the Wikipedia article got it wrong, he never said six weeks, but the transcripts stand, DS support several "nut case theories" --Striver 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, are we talking about the same Alex Jones? The Illuminati-Freemasonry-Tri-Lateralists are gonna get us Alex Jones? Morton devonshire 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, David Schippers shares many of Alex Jones views. Ask yourself: Why would DS agree with Alex Jones that there was Iraqi involvment in the Oklahoma City bombing? --Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Download the 9-11: The Road to Tyranny [152] for free, its legal, and listen to the DS-AJ talk. Its on 57 miuntes 50second. --Striver 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would we do that? I am wondering if a single person or advocate such as yourself that there has been a coverup, a controlled demolition or any of these other conspiracy theories has even one thing that proves their allegations are factual. They offer zero proof of anything.--MONGO 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not true, it only proves that you know nothing about other views.--Striver 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More on POV

By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.

WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation

--Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Here, a site of scholars sayin the USA governments is lying about 9/11 [153] --Striver 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

among them:

Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions


Is he also a nut-case? --Striver 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? Who cares...maybe he has a political agenda, or maybe he has been mislead by conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
In any case, fact stands: He does not belive in the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and is a part of a significant minority, that happen to include me. This article is POV since it dissregards that. --Striver 13:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There are just loud...that doesn't mean they are numerous...whenever someone has something to say without any substance to back it up, they usually have to be loud to get anyone to pay attention to them. Interestingly, I have looked through their websites with an open mind and I found not one shred of proof that there was a coverup, a conspiracy or controlled demolition. All they provide is opinion.--MONGO 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your claim "without any substance to back it up" is simply false. We already know that you do not share our view, you do not need to reiterate that, we already know that you do not view our arguments as convincing. I find it offesive that you claim we base our view on nothing, just yelling for fun and to get attention. You not accepting our view does not result in Wikipedia presenting your view as factual --Striver 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And just to give a simple evidence of control demolition: Building seven, and Harry addminting they "pull it". But im not here to talk about what is the truth or not, im here to edit Wikipedia in a NPOV manner. --Striver 13:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we addressed building 7 before and the misrepresentation of the "pull it" quote. Do you have proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Who is Harry? Honestly, enough about what I believe, or what the other editors believe, or what you believe. Please, present the evidence for making a change to the article. 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Larry Silverstein. I do not need to present a single shreed of evidence. I only need to establish that a significan minority contests this theory. And i have done that. --Striver 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the Larry Silverstein believes that bin Laden did not bear responsbility for the 9/11 attacks? If so, where did Silverstein express this belief? patsw 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No, i personaly belive that larry sliped and didnt follow the official coverup story when addmiting that they blew up building seven. But that is not really relevant, im not here to convince anyone of anything, only to make sure that Wikipeida policy is followed, something that is not done right now, to the loss of my point of view. --Striver 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary or secondary sources presenting verifiable evidence that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for 9/11

Please, no meta-discussion in this section. patsw 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No evidence needed

I can get you a list of evidence, but there is no reason. I am not here to convince you that other theories are credible, or that the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is false. The truth it totaly irrelevant to my claim. My claim is: A significant minority is contesting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and hence is Wikipedia not to present the Bin Laden conspiracy theory as factual, no mater who is right. Wikipeida does not care for the truth.

This demand can not be contested.

--Striver 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does care for the truth...the people you mention are but an insignificant minority.--MONGO 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, you are misstaken. Wikiepedia does not care for truth, and it is not a "insignificant minority", its a "significant minority". Wikipedia states the criteria for being a significant minority as such:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
And you know what? I havent even started with all the middle eastern people that belive its a Zionist conspiracy. Now, that deffinitly makes it a "significant minority", if not totaly removing it from the "minority" section. --Striver 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Do they have proof of a coverup or of controlled demolition? There must be a million people that believe in UFO's too....and not one piece of fact to back up that belief.--MONGO 14:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have lots of evidence that we belive disproves the Bin Laden theory, but that is irrelevant, im not going to talk about that. Wikipedia does care for trying to determine who "is right", only that nothing is claimed as factual if it is dispute. --Striver 14:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A significant minority in the US do not believe in evolution, including several academics, such as William Dembski. Yet the only mention it gets is under Scientific and Religious controversy. I don't see any call for a Conspiracy of Evolution article. --Mmx1 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that is why the article is in a intense debate. Look at the talk page, there are intense debates of why the article proclaims the theory to be factual. However, im don't know anything about that topic, and i don't really care. I care about Wikipedia policies, not what some other article is or is not doing right. As for Conspiracy of Evolution, nobody is claiming there is any such conspiracy, while everyone is claiming the is some' sort of conspircay regarding this event. --Striver 14:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Try 9/11 conspiracy theories. Everyone is NOT claiming that there was some sort of conspiracy on 9/11....only an indistinct extreme fringe minority that have zero evidence of anything that would fit the definition of proof.--MONGO 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Get real mongo, do you even know what the word "conpiracy" means? Ill quote this article as it is now:

The nineteen conspiring hijackers who carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda,

--Striver 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed, Striver, that a conspiracy isn't a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contested

So, is my claim proven correct? I claim the following three points:

1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the Bin Laden theory is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.

2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the Bin Laden theory.

3) The Bin Laden theory is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.


Is any of this three statments are contested? If not, i will prepare to make changes. --Striver 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen people speaking up in support of your poistion. Clearly there is no concensus for the changes you want to make. Tom Harrison Talk 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I guess i need to continue talking. --Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


The "significant minority" is the grey area here. With regard to the folks you named - their greatest claim to notability are the claims they're making and their association with SFTT. That's a circular argument.--Mmx1 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, that is not true. I have mentioned people that are notable in themselve, not withstanding their view on 9/11. ill list a few of them again:


That is a *short* list of people notable in themself. HOWEVER! Let me remined you that the wiki policy is NOT to find people that are notable in themsleve for the view to be considered "significant minority", it is enough that it is easy to find proponets of the view. And for that, i need not go longer than Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Michael Rivero. With that, i state that i have provided much more evidence than necesary to prove that i hold a "significant minority" view. --Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


If I were to add this to Talk:Evolution what would you think?
1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the theory of evolution is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.
2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the theory of evolution.
3) The theory of evolution is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.
I would think that someone is cherrypicking Wikipedia rules in order to inject a non-NPOV bias into an article that is held by the vast majority of interested parties to be factual.
I think the current structure of September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sense and provides both sides, including the minority, with a voice. Not only that, but it's a Wikipedia precedence, as you can see with other articles such as Apollo 11 / Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy.

-Quasipalm 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i belive that Wikipolicy is very clear that "theory of evolution" should not be presented as factual. I think many of the problems they face on that article is that they have merged "Macro Evolution" with "Micro Evolution". The second is not contested, and can be presented as a fact, but a "significant minority" is contesting "Macro Evolution". The correct thing to do is to split the Evolution article into Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.

I agree that September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sence, one article for the facts, another one for the theory. I am not contesting that. What i am contesting is that a theory contested by a "significant minority" is presented as factual, and that goes against core principles of Wikiepdia WP:NPOV.


As for the Apollo 11 / Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, that is unfair since there is no "significant minority" for that theis, and certainly not a list of this kind:

As for Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy, i mentioned it above.

In other words: "Apollo moon landing hoax" is not comparable, and Evolution is filled with POV talks in the talk page, so that is no ideal solution to point to. I await your answer--Striver 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the contesting and start the presenting

Please do not appeal to the editing consensus on other articles (or your characterization of it), this article is unique for several reasons. I still don't know who holds this significant minority view, namely that bin Laden bears no responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Striver, first on your list was James Bamford but you conceded he was a mistake, then you named David Schippers, but he was merely critical, as were hundreds of others were in government and law enforcement, that the FBI failed to stop the attacks but could have. This is not the same thing as a claim that bin Laden bears no responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. There are innumerable critics of the failure of persons and organizations to prevent the attacks.
You have not presented a list of citations of who believes what as a significant minority. It's not enough to say they disagree with the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. We write articles about what people claim, not what they reject. Verifiable evidence separates the crank from the investigator. If there's a coherent alternative explanation for what happened on 9/11 held by a siginifcant minorty, I'm paying attention. Please try to get past the personal crusade for truth and present the coherent alternative explanation of the 9/11 attacks and who adheres to it. Be specific. patsw 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are misstaken. I am not here to say what happpened. I am saying that a contested view is presented as factual, and that is POV. I have provided ample proof of the theory being rejected by a "significant minority". My aim right now is very simple: Stop claiming the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is factual, since it is contested by a "significant minority".

I do not need to give a alternative theory for that. In fact, that would weeken my position, people would start attacking it, and i would need to start defending it, instead of focusing on the main issue. The simple rejection of the theory as factual is enough for Wikipedia to not claim it as factual.

Now, it happens that i do have a alternative theory, but i have no need to bring that up. It would just side track me. I keep it simple, and nobody can refute me as long as i do that. --Striver 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, James Bamford was a misstake. But David Schippers is much more that "merely critical", he is stating things that are generaly labeled with the pejorative "conspiracy theories", such as US having foreknowledge of pearl Harbor, and Irakir elit guard being involved in the Oklahoma city bombing. Why dont you dissprove these guys saying Bush did it?

Right....a narc for 5 years who got fired because he claimed to have discovered a conspiracy involving CIA running drugs. Now works, not surpisingly, as conspiracy theorist (or if you prefer, conspiracy truthist)--Mmx1 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 02:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your massage again. Please tell me if you feel i did not understand you. --Striver 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They are entitled to their opinions but that doesn't mean they represent anything other than a extreme fringe minority and they won't believe that Bin Laden was behind the attacks because that would contradict their opinion that there has been a government coverup. They have yet to prove there has been a government coverup, so it matters not what they think about Bin Laden's imvolvement.--MONGO 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This statement of yours "that doesn't mean they represent anything other than a extreme fringe minority" is false by Wikipedia standards and policy, as i have demostrated above. Please do not waste both our time by repeating what is proven false. "they won't believe that Bin Laden was behind the attacks because that would contradict their opinion that there has been a government coverup" is your original research, and false, probably because you dont know enogh of thouse people. But it is irrelevant why they contest it, wikipedia policies is totaly unintreted in their motives. It only cares if it exist, an if they are a significant minority, wich i have proven they are, by wikipedia standards. "They have yet to prove there has been a government coverup, so it matters not what they think about Bin Laden's imvolvement" is false. They do not need to prove anything, only reject the version in order for it to be not represented as factual --Striver 11:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What I know about "those people" is that not one of them has anything other than their own opinions either. They haven't proven there was a government coverup, or controlled demolition or anything in the least. You have proven zero except to try and make everyone here think that a small minority of self proclaimed experts constitute more than an extreme fringe minority.--MONGO 11:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Alrigh, now i know that you do not want to listen. So i will not waste my time trying to reach you. For everybody else:
They have their own proves, it is ridiculos to belive that a United States House of Representatives Congresswoman, a Professor of Physics, the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the former chief economist of George W. Bush would hold such a controversial view witout evidence. The only thing is that Mongo is not compeled by the evidence, and in fact prefers to denie they are evidence in the first place. But in either case, Wikipeida does not care about that, it only cares about if they reject the Bin Laden theory or not, and they do. Wikipedia does not demand them to come up with a alternative theory in order for their rejection to be "valid".
Further, as i have quoted above, only the four people i have named here is enough for wikipedia to consider the rejection of the Bin Laden theory to be contested by a "Significant minority", and hence to be grounds for not stating the Bin Laden theroy as factual. Now, Mongo refuses to acknowledge this, and claims that they are only a "extreme fringe minority". For everyone else, here is the actual Wikipedia policy:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
  • In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
What mongo is trying to do, is to claim that the group is a "extremely small", while in fact it is a "significant minority", since they fullfill the criteria "it should be easy to name prominent adherents". --Striver 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cheese Stands Alone

There seems to be no consensus for Striver's particular point here, except his own, so let's consider the matter decided. Stive-man -- admire your determination, but save your powder for another day. Peace out. Morton devonshire 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i know that people are not agreeing with me, they are offering all kinds of explenations and counter arguements that are not valid, such as demanding that i give evidence and other things that wikipedia policies do not oblige me to offer. I have Wikipolicy on my side, and people will eventualy see that. Thanks for your comment.--Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that there is a Wikipedia policy which requires statements to be backed up with evidence? Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutly no such demand, Wikipedia does not care the very least in the truth or deman any kind of evidence from people. Wikipedia:Verifiability only demands that what we say is sourced by people, and nothing more, nothing about those people being right or having prove or not being nuts. If half the world says the world does not exist, then wikipeida will not claim that as factual. Anyway, i do not want the article to state anything as factual, rather the opposite, that it stops stating contested theories as factual. --Striver 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
OBL was the mastermind behind 9/11...he even admitted to this. There is no theory as you may wish to think.--MONGO 11:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. We are not discussing evidence, we are discussing amount of people rejecting the theory. Further, i contest he admitted it, but that is not relevant to this discussion.--Striver 12:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearification

I am NOT here to prove or promote any theory, theis or anything at all.

I AM here to state that the Bin Laden theory is not to be stated as factual.


--Striver 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the best thing to do is go and add this information to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you intentionaly missunderstanding what i am sayin? Read what i wrote again. And dont you insult me by clapping me on the head and saying pejorative things like that! --Striver 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


So?

Anyone more having a vaild counterarguement?

Anyone else contesting that a "significant minority", according to wikiepdia standarts, is rejecting the Bin Laden theory? --Striver 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is not 'Is anyone contesting the idea?' but 'Is anyone but you supporting it?' Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As i see it, i am quoting WP official policies, and i am delivering exactly what it demands from me.

Basicly: I have right.

Basicly: You dont like it. You hate it. You give non-relevant arguements against it.


So, can i have a relevant argument?

Do not give me the following, since it has been proven irrelevant or false:

  • The Bin Laden theory is factual.
  • There is no proof for other theories.
  • Only a insignificant and small minority reject the Bin Laden theory.
  • I need to give proof for a alternative theory.

And such. I dont need to prove anyting. I only need to establish that a significant minority, in Wikipeida standards, reject it, and i have done that.

The truth is:

  • A significant minority, according to Wikipedia standards, reject the Bin Laden theory.
  • Wikiepdia is not to claim as factual things that are notably contested.

You dont like it. You seem to argue that if you stop answering me, or keep repreating irrelevant arguments, ill get tired and go away. That is not going to happen. --Striver 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


And for your benefit, i repreat a short list of people rejecting the theory:

--Striver 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"...since it has been proven irrelevant or false..." Proven to who? Not to me; I've read your arguments, and find them unconvincing. You have read the other editor's arguments, and you find them unconvinving. I see no point in each of us repeating our positions. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a siginficant minority view at all, but a set of views:
  • Controlled demolition: Robert Bowman (the colonel), David Griffin (the philosopher), Steven Jones (the physicist), Morgan Reynolds (the economist)
  • US Agents, not al Qaeda, highjacked the aircraft: Andreas von Bülow (the German politician), Michael Rupert (ex-LAPD)
  • Not indicating any view but skepticism of the majority view: McKinney (the American politician)
They are incorrect but I add they are also not significant. The alternatives to the mainstream theory including the above two are contained in the linked article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which continues to grow in size. I believe the link and discussion in the text conforms this article to having a neutral point of view. patsw 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about their theories. In that sense, the are not a uniform, but they are uniform in that they reject the Bin Laden version, and that is my point.

Im not here to give a theory, im here to state that a significant minorty REJECTS the Bin Laden view. And according to WP:NPOV, that means "easly to find representatives". And i did that.

And i did better than that, i even presented individual that are notable in themselves. It is impossible to claim that *the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the The former chief economist of George W. Bush are insignificant people. And they reject the Bin Laden theory. Hence, it is proven that this article is POV. --Striver 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds was the chief economist for the Department of Labor, which is a whole lot different than being George W. Bush's chief economist. This is yet another inaccurate claim which you have made multiple times. Rhobite 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....

I'm suprised to see that so many people belive that conspiracy BS. Hell, someone has even claimed that a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers. Kurt Leyman

You are talking about the nutcases, either patsies or idiots. Let me quote:

May 2005 update: Walter's seclusion in Europe did not last long. He (or his publicists) arranged a multi-nation tour of 9/11 skeptics to speak on these issues, arranging for some very good authors and experts along with some hoaxers pushing discredited disinformation. One of the good activists was expelled from the tour for complaining about the presence of a writer for one of America's most widespread neo-Nazi newspapers -- a more sensible strategy would have been to expel the neo-Nazi newspaper from the tour, not a New York City based activist seeking justice for the environmental damage caused to human health by rushing to reopen Wall Street when it was not yet safe to do so.
Shortly before Walter's European tour started, reopen911.org was given a substantial overall that massively increased the nuttiness quotient on the site -- the most notorious is now an outrageous suggestion that the Twin Towers were blown up with nukes. Reopen911 now has these claims on its homepage - just in time for the European media to examine what is marketed as the best material from the 9/11 truth movement in the United States.
Were the Twin Towers brought down by a Nuclear Detonation?
Hunter Thompson Killed over explosives evidence.
Mr. Walter should get a special award for the most stupid claim yet uttered by someone pretending to be a 9/11 truth activist for this nonsense. [154]

--Striver 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact?

If it is proven factual, why dont you go claim the 1 000 000 dollars?--Striver 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that million dollar prize is winable, you've fallen for a silly media stunt. -Quasipalm 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
How come? --Striver 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Public response in the United States

Why is the paragraph about Howard Stern here? This doesn't seem to be public response but an advertisement for Stern. His show was an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' is POV. My local tv station was also an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' but it has no mention.

Should this paragraph be deleted? I could be wrong of course so if I am that is fine. --Skinnyboy401 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it should be removed, or qualified ('unlikely source of news and comfort to many new yorkers (this would require citation I think). -Quasipalm 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa signatories

The fatwa was jointly issued with Fazlur Rahman (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam rather than the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman. Is this correct? -- max rspct leave a message 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FAS lists one signatory as "Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh." Looks like it is correct. --Mr. Billion 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Or... Actually, that's odd. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam group you mentioned seems to correspond with the name "Shaykh Mir Hamzah," who is "secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan". The name is "e-Pakistan" instead of "e-Islam," but it looks like the same group. Anyway (assuming you're talking about the 1998 fatwa) the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman can't be a signatory to the 1998 document, since he died in 1988. The "Fazlur Rahman" listed on FAS's copy of the fatwa was apparently Bangladeshi. Confusing. Maybe we're not talking about the same fatwa after all. --Mr. Billion 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article is still pov.

And by the way, read this:

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.[155]--Striver 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You said that you were going to drop the issue of the poll above. Did you change your mind? Rhobite 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I dropped it since i didnt want my main point being diverted into a disscusion about what they meant. I reposted it since i now have the complete quote and article.

This article is still POV, it portrays the Bin Laden theory as factual. Read:


"Believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:

Total: True: 18%, Not true: 61%
Pakistan: True: 4%, Not true: 86%

Source: USAToday [156]

Now, dont tell me that 86% of Pakistan is a insignicant minorty. --Striver 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So, anyone that want to argue that the article is is NPOV? Majority in the middle east outright reject Arab involvment, S9/11T reject Bin Ladin theory, half of newyourk belives government is lying... c'mon, people, its imposible to say all of those are insignificant! --Striver 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the opinion poll should be covered in Wikipedia. How about we add it to World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks or Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks? However it doesn't merit changing the text of this article to say that the 9/11 commission report is "only a theory". We don't make factual determinations based on opinion polls. Rhobite 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no position on the articles you mentioned. I try to focus on one single issue here: The article presenting the Bin Laden theory as factual is pov, since it is notably diputed, to say the least. --Striver 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your edit, and i didnt get what this means:

"We don't make factual determinations based on opinion polls"

Could you expand on that? --Striver 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Opinion polls are not a substitute for empirical observation and logic. The scientific consensus is that the official account of the 9/11 attacks is factual. We know that the 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Egypt, Lebanon, and UAE. The nonsense about them still being alive is just a case of mistaken identity that the conspiracy theorists refuse to let go of. These are facts, no matter how many Pakistanis you ask. Rhobite 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, that poll was conducted within 6 months of the 9/11 attacks. There was still a lot of uncertainty at that time, especially in Muslim countries. Since then, Bin Laden has tacitly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and the 9/11 commission report has been released. Do you have any more recent polling data? Rhobite 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A significant number of doubters means you mention that a significant number doubt it. It doesn't mean you change it to a theory unless you have facts saying otherwise. --Mmx1 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we that reject the Bin Laden theory do not regard what you call "evidence" as convincing. But anyhow, Wikipedia does not care for facts, truth and such. Not the least. from WP:NPOV

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

--Striver 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


also from WP:NPOV: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. The "Bin Laden Theory", as you call it, is factual. Debate on this page has not negated that. The doubters have nothing consistent to offer (if it did you would be offering it instead of asserting "so many people believe X is false, hence we must state it as an opinion". --Mmx1 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also states that we needn't treat pseudoscientific theories and scientific facts as just "two different opinions". That's essentially what we are dealing with here. A majority of the people on this planet probably believe in creation stories, yet evolution, which is a featured article, correctly treats creation stories as myth, rather than "another explanation". The fact that: a great many Pakistani villagers are convinced that "The Jews did 9/11"; that a former economist at the Department of Labor believes that no planes ever struck the twin towers but rather that holographic images were projected to create this illusion; that Scientologists are convinced that the hijackers were brainwashed and programmed to commit the atrocities by a team of psychiatrists; these theories are equivalent to pseudoscience and do not earn equal footing with the "Bin Laden theory". Regardless, Striver is presenting these theories as though they represent a single alternative to the Bin Laden explanation. As the three examples above indicate, there a range of conspiracy theories that agree with and depart from the standard explanation in different respects. Some believe that planes struck the towers, some don't. Of those that do, some believe Arab terrorists were on the planes and some don't. Some adamantly reject that Bin Laden was involved, while others believe he was involved but that he is in fact a CIA agent. So Striver, if you want the disputed tag to remain, you need to be clear on which points you think need qualification. Saying "nothing specific, just all of it" won't do. Babajobu 08:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Jesus page and note that it's neutrality is disputed. So is John F. Kennedy assassination. Why shouldn't this page be so? To address Babajobu, I think what I percieve is a majority imposing it's will on a minority. Just because the minority is fractous doesn't mean it's wrong. The minority claim is this: the story as told by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA is largely untrue. Pakistani villagers may express that differently but it's the same claim. Look at Galileo's minority opinion which we now generally agree to have been more correct than the official story of the time. Kaimiddleton 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User Babajobu replied to my above comment in the next section. I reproduce the comment here:
Kaimiddleton, as I stated above, you still need to cite specific points in the article with which you disagree. Do you think we should mention that some think Bin Laden is a CIA agent? Do you think we should state that it is a matter of disagreement whether planes ever struck the towers? There is a heterogeneous group of people who take exception to different aspects of the standard 9/11 explanations. Which part of the article do you think needs to be qualified? Unless you cite something specific that you think must be addressed as NPOV, you really can't just slap a tag on it. That's not how use of this tag works. Babajobu 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically: I hold that September 11, 2001 attacks as written holds to the story as widely expressed by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream media outlets in the United States. Under the section "the attacks" it says "The crash in Pennsylvania is believed to have resulted from the hijackers either deliberately crashing the aircraft or losing control of it as they fought with the passengers." the term "believed" while not a complete claim of truth, passively implies truth of a disputed event, with no discussion of alternative theories. Under Collapse of the World Trade Center it goes into detail about the NIST report: "The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing." I believe this is 100% fact; that the report does say so.
What I find is a systematic bias that gives the viewer a perception that elements of the story do not bear questioning. So whereas I agree with most of the factualness of the page (e.g. that NIST was quoted accurately) I disagree with it's overall presentation. The criticism I have is that questions such as mine and others in the 9/11 Truth Movement are marginalized then framed into seeming implausability. If the conspiracy theories section were framed otherwise, e.g. as criticisms of the main account, and given more substance within the main article, then I wouldn't have such a problem with giving long coverage to government reports and mainstream media reporting that is widely repeated, even if false. Kaimiddleton 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem for you here is that the vast majority of Wikipedia:Reliable sources regard the "alternative explanations" as ludicrous. You are right about Galileo, eventually he was proven right. And I am willing to posit that you may be a modern day Galileo, a speaker of plain truth who encounters only dogged superstition and ignorance. Perhaps future generations will venerate you in the same way we today venerate Galileo...however, that time has not yet arrived. If Wikipedia were being written in the late Middle Ages, we would probably state that the heliocentric model of the solar system was rubbish, because that's what mainstream, reliable sources held, and that's what Wikipedia reports. As I say, in today's (perhaps ignorant) world your beliefs are regarded as conspiracist pseudoscientific crackpottery. I'm not saying that's fair, it's just the case. So unfair as it may be, your beliefs about 9/11 cannot possibly be treated with equal respect in Wikipedia's 9/11 article. Unless you have specific statements in the article that you think are biased, I think we need to remove the POV tag. Regards, Babajobu 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Baba, I agree. Remove the tag. Morton devonshire 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

I propose adding "See also 9/11 Truth Movement" under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The fact that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement is not mentioned anywhere on this page. 9/11 conspiracy theories and a movement of people asking questions about the government related but distinct. Furthermore, the movement has been steadily present over time. I see every reason to include a short "see also" in a section that is already very short, and feel that it is of extreme POV to argue otherwise. Kaimiddleton 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither are any of the individual conspiracy theories mentioned here. Avoiding scrutiny by hiding under the phrase "asking questions" doesn't give your group any priority over all the rest. --Mmx1 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That group is but one of dozens of groups that claim they have all the "truth" on the issue. That "movement" can be discussed in more detail in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is not extreme POV to argue otherwise.--MONGO 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have run into some of these people, and at the WTC site, no less. Some may delude themselves into thinking they're seeking the truth, but they are nothing but the 9/11 equivalent of holocaust deniers. -- Cecropia 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To echo MONGO: If none of the individual conspiracy theories are mentioned here I find that fair. However "my group" is not quite an accurate characterization in my view; for instance, the "peace movement" is made of many different groups. My group is the 9/11 truth alliance. There are many researchers or people in the broader public who do not go under that rubrick but consider themselves "members of" or even just "involved in" the "9/11 truth movement". Kaimiddleton 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Prominent mention of "9/11 Truth Movements" as separate from other conspiracy theories is improper and POV. The name "truth" movement begs the question that the truth is other than what has come out publicly, that the members have a better handle on "truth" than others, and that they are all seeking "truth," rather than proposing pet ideas. -- Cecropia 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the only argument that I can see as being contradictory to the "official" one is that the U.S. Government had some of the information that they may heave been able to use that may have prevented the attacks....now I say may have, for what I mean is not that there was a Government coverup, but that the intelligence was not digested or divested to the right decision making people that could have possibly made an impact on prevention. I don't blame any administration for this either...it is just the usual beauacracy of government.--MONGO 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been researching and writing for a long time. Every significant (and some non-significant) event seems to have its more-or-less organized doubters. Include in this Flying Saucer enthusiasts (very big in the '50s), holocaust deniers, Shakespeare Authorship doubters, Kennedy assassination revisionists and many others. How many younger Wikipedians are aware that Hitler's fate was not definitvely known outside the Kremlin for about 20 years? Until the Russians finally produced bunker photos, the theories about Hitler's whereabouts were bandied about early and often. Some conspiracies may have elements of truth, but even there it seems that these e;ements are part of the shotgun speculations of theorists. -- Cecropia 21:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I argue that excluding my short phrase is POV as follows: 1) the comment is short. 2) the rest of the article is long and, from my perspective, reflects the "official story" or the story expressed by the mainstream press in great detail. Many other pages are linked to from here, e.g., a list of tenants (victims) of the two towers. Significant members of the victims families, e.g. the jersey girls, are part of the movement of people who continue to ask questions about the official story. The history of their claims is reflected in the article 9/11 Truth Movement whereas their claims themselves are reflected in 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are separate (though linked) subjects, both of notable significance. Compare that with pressing "random article" on wikipidia. Therefore, they deserve mention here in the way I have done. There is nowhere else on this page that "9/11 truth movement" is mentioned. Therefore it is appropriate and non-redundant to mention it here. Kaimiddleton 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you apply this consistently to every other group under 9/11, we end up with a list of alternate theories which is exactly why the section got spun off. --Mmx1 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm claiming that "9/11 truth movement" is a category rather than a title of a group. Perhaps that's arguable. Again I reference "peace movement" as compared to "unitarians for peace" as a comparision. Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In the article history comment I see:

Mmx1 (pls hash out on talk page; reignite the naming discusssing over "alternativetheories/conspiracy theories,etc" if you must)

Ok: we seem to be on the subject for Framing (communication theory); you might argue I want to frame the discussion one way or another. It is clear to me that framing linked-to material as "conspiracy theories" rather than "9/11 truth movement" weakens my case. So I see your point about the "naming discussion". However, I think it's not a rehash of that discussion because I am viewing the "9/11 truth movement" article as a discussion of the sweep of the movement (when did it start, how many people are involved, what kind of political actions happened), rather than a crystalized summary of specific claims of that movement, as reflected in "9/11 conspiracy theories". Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the formatting slightly of how I'm adding reference to the 9/11 truth movement. I have done it as a reference. The next section does it the same way. Since the conspiracy theory is a section under this article it should have more than a cursory mention of what the sub-section talks about. In fact this section should be further fleshed out. By providing a reference to a non-trivial article that already exists it gives the wiki reader a place to go to find out more if they so choose. That's the point, isn't it? Kaimiddleton 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added another sentence:

The 9/11 Commission Report has addressed many of these speculations but there continues to be some argument.

I think that's a clear characterization of what's going on. Let me put my viewpoint in a less formal manner: there are conspiracy theories. There was a report. There is still argument. Yes, there is actually an ongoing effort by numerous individuals to ask more questions. NOW: that's simple, accurate information, and in my view to not say that is censorship and POV. Kaimiddleton 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kaimiddleton, examine the WP:3RR rule if you please. I post this here so all can see you have been informed. If your POV version is reverted and you revert back to your version, you will have violated the 3 revert rule and will be reported as doing so.--MONGO 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So noted. I wouldn't argue this edit if I didn't feel it was worth arguing (c.f. [157] where I didn't bother as I thought I didn't have as strong a point). Kaimiddleton 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with above comments, that we should not single out one group. And the sentence added, "The 9/11 Commission Report has addressed ..." and "some argument" is inadequate. It's not only the 9/11 commission, but also FEMA, NIST that have refuted the theories, among others. But, I think that the conspiracy theories can be summarized better. I've gone ahead done that. This is as far as we can go in the main article, and all details on the theories, groups... need to go in the subarticles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still disagree. The FEMA and NIST reports are considered unfactual or misleading by 9/11 researchers and are documents that the 9/11 truth movement can actually refer to as solid statements by the mainstream that must be held to account. Hopefully those objections are properly noted in the appropriate pages.
Again, in a subsection, some commentary about relevant objections is appropriate. The wiki article should mention them rather than brushing them under the rug. That was my second point. My first point, which bears repeating at this juncture, is that there is a movement of people with a history that bears documenting. I see people continually inserting edits into this page trying to flesh out this section only to be have the comments summarily deleted. Thus a "Further information: 9/11 Truth Movement" comment is entirely appropriate to me. I think a lot of people try to add such comments here only to be shunted to the "conspiracy theory" page, the proverbial back of the bus, perhaps. Then in that section there is continual pressure about how those theories are expressed.
To sum up: if there is going to be a section entitled "9/11 conspiracy theories" why not give it some substance instead of just a link to another page? Or should we just delete the section entirely? And if so, why?
Kaimiddleton 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a complete deletion of the illusions, but am content to have just a passing mention and a link to a subarticle. Those subarticles are ones I don't usually edit if that matters. It's not like the information isn't available...it's just not on the main page that's all.--MONGO 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearly stating your opinion that you see the conspiracy theories as illusions. Kaimiddleton 16:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Kaimiddleton, as I stated above, you still need to cite specific points in the article with which you disagree. Do you think we should mention that some think Bin Laden is a CIA agent? Do you think we should state that it is a matter of disagreement whether planes ever struck the towers? There is a heterogeneous group of people who take exception to different aspects of the standard 9/11 explanations. Which part of the article do you think needs to be qualified? Unless you cite something specific that you think must be addressed as NPOV, you really can't just slap a tag on it. That's not how use of this tag works. Babajobu 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see my reply in the section above titled 'POV'. Kaimiddleton 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose inclusion of references to the 9/11 Truth Movement in this article. That sort of stuff belongs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Morton devonshire 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the summary of events that opens the article be sourced to the relevant U.S. government agencies. There is still enough uncertainty about what transpired that I think it is a bit rash to present this stuff as if it were universally accepted. --HK 07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree here with HK. Good point. Bov 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Identity cards

Am I right in saying that all the hijackers had identity cards? If so, that would seem to be notable and thus worthy of mention in the article. Eiler7 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't believe it would be an important detail either. patsw 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is worthy of inclusion.. or perhaps to the 'planning of the attacks article'? -- max rspct leave a message 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Airlines declared bankruptcy

I've removed the text, "five major airlines declared bankruptcy in the four years following the attacks", because I think including this implies a direct cause and effect between the terrorist attacks and the problems in the airline industry. Undoubtedly, the terrorist attacks had a major effect on the airline industry (so, I kept the word "severely"), but even without the attacks, the airlines were in trouble anyway. This is due similar reasons as those impacting General Motors and the Ford Motor Company (e.g. underfunded pensions, health care costs, benefits, ...). Another major reason for the airline stuggles is competition with airlines such as Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have the same structural problems and hasn't experience the same problems since the terrorist attacks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Who says the airline industry has problems because of 9/11 which continue to the present? Passenger air travel reached the pre-9/11 peaks in July 2004 and has continued to grow since then. Dept. of Transportation) patsw 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 15

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"allegedly"

I am a newcomer to this article, having taken a look at it in response to the RfC. I notice that there is now something of an edit war over this sentence: "The 19 conspiring hijackers who [allegedly] carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, a well-organized Islamic terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden, a former Saudi national whose citizenship was revoked in 1994[158]." It seems to me that the use of the word "allegedly" ought to be something of a no-brainer, since the matter has not been settled in a court of law and there is assuredly an ongoing dispute about exactly what took place that day. To object to the use of the word "allegedly" strikes me as POV-pushing, but obviously there are a number of editors who strongly disagree. I would like to hear the rationale for striking this word from the aforementioned sentence; it seems to me that it ought to appear more often throughout the article. --HK 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It has also never been settled in a court of law that we landed on the moon. Did we "allegedly" land on the moon? It was also never settled in a court of law that Columbus landed at Hispaniola. How is law a prerequisite to establishing fact? The academic and scholarly consensus supports the majority of what occurred in this article, including that 19 hijackers hijacked four planes and carried out the subsequent attacks.

--Mmx1 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

First, as MmX1 points out, many things other than a "court of law" establish a fact. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States had the competence and authority to be determiner of facts, and the article presents the conclusions of fact they made as fact. Secondly, while bin Laden initially denied involvement, he has since admitted to his role in the attacks. The dispute as you characterize it originates with POV-pushers who seek to give greater prominence to several incompatible conspiracy theories, i.e.: aircraft were not involved, aircraft were involved but the 19 hijackers were not, the 19 hijackers were involved but the greatest damage was done by pre-planted demolition charges in the building, the government had complete foreknowledge of the attacks, etc. A consensus of editors here rejects labeling the 19 hijackers as merely alleged but established as fact. The real dispute is over whether the current internal link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article disputing the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission is the due weight called for according to Wikipedia policy. patsw 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not an allegation - it's that simple. A few details are uncertain, sure, because terrorist attacks are messy. Some people pursuing nonsense conpsiracy theories does not mean the essential story is in dispute. Peter Grey 02:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure several courts of law have made relevant rulings in a variety of countries affirming the "allegations". keith 12:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Would there be anything wrong, then, in qualifying the intro by saying "according to the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 19 conspiring hijackers who carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, etc."? Like I said, I am new to this article. I don't endorse any of the conspiracy theories you mentioned, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable giving my unqualified endorsement to the government's conspiracy theory either, particularly in light of this administration's track record on other issues. --HK 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is too broad to be represented by one commission. Peter Grey 14:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In the case of crimes, it certainly seems reasonable to require a court judgement before simply stating that someone is guilty without qualification. For example, suppose that there was a consensus that Bush was guilty of war crimes, but he had not been tried and convicted. Would this go in the article on Bush without qualification? Should we say that Saddam Hussein is guilty of war crimes on his page before the result of his trial?

Perhaps this is going too far, but is it not potentially libelous to accuse people of having committed crimes when there has not been a court judgement? (The issue is obviously academic in this case — no-one is going to get sued — but I think the point still stands.) Cadr 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, were the charges untrue, you could very well sue the media, the 9-11 commission, and whoever else, for defamation if you had evidence to the contrary. That...hasn't happened. Prosecuting dead people is a bit stupid; in these cases an investigation is usually launched in lieu, which in this case was the 9-11 commission. --Mmx1 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm still not convinced that the outcome of such an investigation ought to have the authority it's being given here. I don't personally doubt that the planes were hijacked by the people named in the 9-11 comission's report, though I think the involvement of OBN is debatable, given that he initially denied involvement (unusual for a terrorist group) and then confessed in a moderately dodgy video. Also, I thought the statement that Al-Qaeda were "well-organised" was somewhat controversial. That phrase could surely be deleted without any loss to the article. Cadr 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Our standard should be the judgement of history, not just courts. How is admitting facts are common knowledge but still refusing to present them as such not being simply pedantic? As for court cases, there's Zacarias Moussaoui and the spanish convictions off the top of my head. keith 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is a pretty pedantic policy. I admit to being wrong regarding the hijackers, but I still stand by the points re OBN and "well organized". Cadr 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you actually embrace the pedantic application of NPOV ad nauseum, then you will need to put "alleged" before every single subject and predicate in the wikipedia. btw what is OBN? keith 02:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but if there is a dispute over whether or not "allegedly" ought to be there (as there isn't, I expect, for George Bush's birth date or the definition of "prime number"), that suggests, on the face of it, that "allegedly" ought to be in there. OBN is Osama bin Laden; sorry, I thought it would be obvious from the context. Anyway, as I said, I don't think there ought to be an allegedly qualifying the involvement of the hijackers, but maybe some other areas of the article need to be hedged. Cadr 19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Allegedly" is not neutral. It is an affirmation of doubt.
  • The claim there is a dispute is not neutral. It is an affirmation of doubt or contradiction on the part of those who have a dispute. The question is whether the mention of the conspiracy theories presenting the dispute in the article gives to it due weight according to Wikpedia policy. patsw 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Allegedly" simply means that the thing in question has been alledged. The claim that there is a dispute is perfectly neutral if there is in fact a dispute, as stated in the NPOV policy. It's certainly disputed that Al-Qaeda is well-organised, and there's never been any hard and fast evidence that Osama bin Laden planned 9/11.Cadr 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There are several tapes of Osama bin Laden admitting to planning the attacks, and there is a tape of the hijackers in an al Qaeda camp. That's hard and fast evidence. Rhobite 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, given that tapes are easily faked, and bin Laden orginally denied responsibility for the attacks [159]. Even if we assume the tapes are real, the fact that bin Laden has both denied and andmitted to planning the attacks would just go to show that you shouldn't believe a word he says! Cadr 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
patsw is correct. The article already gives enough attention to conspiracy theories, maybe too much. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is more than one clue pointing to bin Laden's involvement; marginal doubts about a single clue do not throw the narrative into doubt. The conspiracy theories are merely modern fairy-tales - they are based on fear, not on facts. Peter Grey 05:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There are plently of clues pointing to bin Laden's involvement. There are also plenty of clues suggesting that George Bush has lied to the American people regarding evidence for WMDs, etc. Wikipedia ought to treat both cases in a similar fashion -- by listing the evidence, but not making any allegations unless the facts are beyond doubt.
I also don't see how conspiracy theories are based on fear. Cadr 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Inserting "Allegedly" is POV per those arguments above. As for conspiracy theories based on fear, yeah, a lot of them are, especially those that accuse the government of placing charges or planning the attack or similar such ideas. They're all rooted in fear of the power and reach of the U.S. government. Other conspiracy theories, like the old " 'Twas the Jews!" fallback, are based more on cross-cultural tensions, not like that's a whole lot better. But this sub-thread is getting off-track. There's simply way too much evidence (including his own admission) that OBL was involved for the article to imply that there's significant doubt by inserting "allegedly". I think mentioning the conspiracy theories at all is probably as much or more than some of them really deserve. JDoorjam Talk 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is inserting "allegedly" POV? These things have been alleged. Some people dispute them. If we make it clear that they're alleged by generally reliable sources, there's no POV issue.
Some conspiracy theories are based on fear, but two points are in order. First, not all are, and it's intellectually lazy to make such questionable generalisations in place of specific, verifiable assertions. Second, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that Osama bin Laden might not have planned the attacks. If I said he didn't, but the Illuminati did...now we have a conspiracy theory. In fact, the idea that the attacks were planned by some multi-tentacled Al-Qaeda organisation is arguably a conspiracy theory based on fear (though, of course, a conspiracy theory which may turn out to be true). Cadr 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • George Bush has lied to the American people regarding evidence for WMDs - irrelevant to September 11 (although probably highly relevant to some other articles). Peter Grey 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it's irrelevant to September 11. If you read what I wrote more carefully, I was compating the treatment of comparable allegations [in terms of the controversy surrounding them] across different articles, on the assumption that there ought to be some editorial consistency across Wikipedia. Cadr 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is for the mainstream account of September 11, 2001. If you have an alternate POV, there is a perfectly good place for your views at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this article is about September 11 2001. If it's about mainstream accounts of Septermber 11 2001, it should be so titled. Mainstream accouts will obviously get more attention in the main article, but they shouldn't be stated as fact where there is any significant degree of controversy. Cadr 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I also rather resent the implication that I'm a conspiracy theorist. I happen to think that the mainstream account is probably correct, but open to reasonable doubt -- something which should be reflected in the article. Cadr 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a conspiracy theory for 9/11 can't be a personal conspiracy theory but has to be verifiable, cited, etc. as any other information added to the Wikipedia must be. patsw 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? They claim its a matter of "national security" or "protection of privacy" yet the security camera picture of 'Atta' was in fact edited and his passport was 'thrown down' no doubt, to survive the crash and the inferno and fall to ground and picked up among the tons of garbage blowing around on the new york city streets... there is nothing yet proven in the minds of many except that our government lies, has lied and continues to lie! We what the facts, just the facts.

"Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House...Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen" (Yahoo! News March 27th, 2006). Now that this had beed established in a court of law, can we accept that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the events of 9/11? Slimdavey 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph [Conspiracy Theories--Railsmart] written by another person is incorrect / partially incorrect / The True Happenings on 9/11

I would like you to please view this video it is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes long and will clear up what really happened with both the pentagon incident and the twin towers incident. This movie is the best conspiracy video out there about the 9/11 events i highly recommend you watch the video.

Below is the address to the video in order to fully understand the video you must watch it all:-


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

Yes, we can see it, and it was reverted. Is there a reason you're posting this here? --Golbez 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
To spread the word of junk science, innuendo, misrepresentations of facts, solicit money...etc.--MONGO 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Loose Change asks some interesting questions, but unfortunately makes extremist allegations without a basis in evidence which then discredits itself, such as the idea that Flight 93 passengers were deboarded in Cleveland and then herded into an empty NASA research building, and then dissapeared. Most 9/11 researchers do NOT support ideas suggesting that planes did not the WTC towers or that planes were swapped or that missiles were fired, etc., but Loose Change treats all of these the same as all the other questions, and thus misrepresents the hard work of many people to get the best questions out there which are much stronger, such as the question of why the jets weren't scrambled, the WTC7 collapse oddities, etc. Bov 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am not involved"

Recently a second lengthy quotation of bin Laden's denial in the September 11, 2001 attacks was added. I recommend removing it. In brief: it adds nothing to the article and it gives undue weight to the denial statements as being truthful.

Bin Laden before September 11, 2001 boasted of his leadership of terrorist cells which had attacked the United States, and he made public threats against the United States, and consistently since December 2001 asserted al Qaeda as responsible for the attacks.

A double indirect statement (i.e. the BBC discerning "the street level in the Arab world") claims that the December 2001 tape in which bin Laden boasts responsibility for the attacks is "faked". This statement may reflect what the BCC believed the "Arab street" believed on December 14, 2001, but such an impression of a "faked" tape was transitory as bin Laden mocked the American armed forces attempting to capture or kill him in several tapes released throughout 2002. This temporary doubt of authenticity is not relevant to the attacks themselves which is the subject of the article. patsw 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to take it out...unless someone can prove that it is faked and that would be interesting to see.--MONGO 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Description of conspiracy theories

I saw the changes to the couple of sentences trying to describe conspiracies and would like go ahead with those. Currently they do not reflect the actual theories:

1) there *are* no other theories about why the towers collapsed outside of demolition, so it is not correct to say 'something other than the airliners.' That suggests there are numerous ideas when there is really only one.

2) while most people think that some people within the US government had some role, describing that as 'government involvement' is not entirely correct - no researchers I know of implicate entire government agencies, but numerous researchers implicate powerful financiers and others along with individuals within the government. The way the section reads now implies that researchers think 'the' government is behind the attacks, or a government agency, etc. This is not correct.

current version:

"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by something other than the airliners, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

change to:

"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government or other insider involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by pre-planned explosives, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

Also . . . this part "speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge" has an interesting twist in today's trial:

"FBI agents acknowledged under cross-examination that the bureau knew years before Sept. 11 that al-Qaida had plans to use planes as missiles to destroy prominent buildings. They also acknowledged numerous missed opportunities in the months before Sept. 11 to catch two of the hijackers with terrorist links known to the government, even though the pair frequently used their own names in the U.S. to rent cars, buy plane tickets and even, once, to file a police report after one got mugged."[160]

At what point does the fact that the agencies 'knew' stop becoming a 'conspiracy theory'? Bov 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you place such information in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories--MONGO 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the description above is not reflective of the reality of the 'conspiracy theories.' I'd like to change it as I've noted. Bov 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear what claim is being made here. If it is that there's only one alternative theory, that's not correct as there are several incompatible alternative theories. patsw 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The claim I'm making is that the way the paragraph is now, one would think there are several 'conspiracy theories' (not NIST or FEMA theories) specifically about how the WTC towers collapsed. There is only one that I know of. If you know of others besides demolition, please tell me what they are. Bov 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen people claim that missiles were used -- also that nuclear weapons were involved -- and don't forget Satan himself. You also make it seem like there is only one controlled demolition theory -- when in fact I've heard of many different theories on the different demolition tactics. I think to say that there is only one conspiracy theory is clearly false. -Quasipalm 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

General Linkspam Cleanup

I've just did a quick review of the article and cleaned up the references, including removing some linkspam and dead links. All of the references in the article are now using [Wikipedia:Footnotes]] format. When editing the article and adding references, please use this format. Also, any erroneous linkspam will be summarily deleted without warning. Dr. Cash 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

9/11 "A Memorial" link from CNN

I want to add this link http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/ to the section Victims and damage under external links. The link not only includes a list of names, but also provides submitted photos in tribute to the victims. What do you guys think? --Ryz05 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an appropriate enough link, so I'm just going to include it. But if any of you have any objections, just let me know. Thanks. --Ryz05 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with adding this link, though it does seems to significantly duplicate what's in the "CNN.com - 'Lists of Victims'" link. Perhaps the link you suggest could replace the latter one, rather than expanding the number of links? -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the CNN memorial link could replace the CNN link that has just the names. Please delete the latter link at will. Thank you. --Ryz05 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Video

I have just watch this video on conspiracies regarding 9/11 Video. I mean no disrespect to anyone who was affected by 9/11 but can someone watch the video and see if its claims are at all legitamite? Tutmosis 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Knock yourself out. --Mmx1 05:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link ofcourse it didnt cover everything in the video. Tutmosis 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explaination for the puffs of smoke below the collapse and the broken windows in the lobby of 1 or 2. Those are about the only things left for me to debunk in my mind, that and WTC7's a little shaky. Maybe this site will help [www.911myths.com]. C. Nelson 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Culpability

Why are we removing indications that OBL was responsible? [See diff].

Ordering? I asked you (with a please!) not to remove well-cited information that states the mainstream opinion, and kept your classified (non-public) caveat. Why delete the fact that OBL first denied and later admitted to it? Looks like you're the one reading bad faith into my edits.

--Mmx1 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite what I did, in fact, grammar edits were lost with the revert of my edits. Stating mainstream opinion is not what Wikipedia is about in any shape or form. If wikipedia depended on that, Saddam Hussein would be the prime suspect as far as 9/11. Please, I'm not saying that OBL is guilty as hell and should be crucified or is innocent and should be showered with flowers. Instead, we need to have hard cold facts about ANYONE before saying "this person murdered a bunch of people". It's not a Good Idea IMO to believe that on Wikipedia common opinion should trump good sources for proof.

(I will not get in a revert war, I'm a discusser, not a boxer, as you can see by my history of almost 8,000 edits without any negative remarks about my POV and similar issues)

—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-19 09:28Z
I'll look for the link to the videos (several of them) in which OBL did in fact do all but completely confess to being behind the terrorist attacks.--MONGO 09:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


That would be great, really, I mean it. I would like to add that by looking at the diff above I did not remove OBL from being responsible although that was stated as fact here. I did not do what I was accused of and I don't appreciate being lied about. That is completely untrue as can be seen by looking at my edit above.
Facts regarding this issue are needed quite a lot. I realize this is a hot issue but many others have been of the "he's guilty because people believe it" slant which is not encyclopedic. If there is a video which can be cited where it is said "I planned/particpated in 9/11" and has been authenticated to be OBL I completely applaud the efforts of the editor who contributes it to Wikipedia.
Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-19 09:44Z
I'm not arguing it based on "lots of folks believe it" (because frankly, if you were to poll the world, it'd probably come down to the US did it). I'm arguing that the findings of the 9-11 commission represent the most authoritative and reliable version of the events.
Usually on Wikipedia, we try to not just use one source about an issue especially when that government will a) avoid specific details, and b) is in a current military conflict with countrie(s) associated with that same issue (persons or groups).
<span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!">—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-19 10:10Z
Unfortunately there is a severe lack of alternative information of similar credibility. Moreover, it stands up to rational scrutiny? It's not perfect, nor is it 100% perfect, but it is by far the best source. Do the Bin Laden tapes not count as a second source? Yes, they could have been faked, but there hasn't been a retraction of his taking culpability. --Mmx1 10:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the grammar edits, no, they were not in fact lost. Look at the history, I edited the quote directly. Don't jump to conclusions. How do we determine cold facts? Who do we take as authorities? The 9-11 commission was put together exactly to produce an authoritative account of the attack, and while there are doubters it still stands up to rational scrutiny. This has been discussed ad nauseum. --Mmx1 09:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't replied to my denial of your assertion that I removed indications that OBL was responsible. I did not do so and at this point it's extremely difficult to think that you can be reasoned with. I'll let it go at this time as I believe that Wikipedia is about working together, not against one another.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-19 10:13Z
Yes, I did. Moving the comment below so it's not hidden in the clutter.
I see good faith has gone out the window. For someone who asks other to assume good faith you certainly don't yourself. I said
  • a) "[we] removing indications that OBL was responsible?" (not pointing fingers explicitly but it was clear I was talking about you)
  • b)"delete the fact that OBL first denied and later admitted to it?"
In the diff you changed "determined" (which is factual) to "had information", which indicates a lower level of confidence. E.g. We had information about WMD's in Iraq, but did not determine if they were there. You also deleted "Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted, involvement in the incidents." What was left in that paragraph was merely that we had classified information that OBL was involved. Looks like a fair cop to me. It's the internet. A thick skin would serve you well.
--Mmx1 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones

Would This Conspiracy Video be good to put in the article?

No: 1) it's a bad movie for those questioning the official 9-11 story 2) speculation doesn't belong on this page... see the 911 conspiracies page. Despite there being some real claims from the 'conspiracy buffs', as they are labeled, the Loose Change series does not do a good job of representing the best questions regaurding 9-11. It's all circumstantial, the narrator uses rhetoric to convey some of his points, and some claims are easily debunked or very shaky (the pod theory?). These debunked myths dilute the serious consideration of the few relevant claims the movie makes. Because it speculates tremendously and has some bad claims, its a bad movie (that and it's not by Alex Jones). Speculation is also against wikipedia's policy, unless it is a significant view. Since most of the movie is speculative, it doesn't belong here.
On another note; I think that there should be more than a link to a 'conspiracy theories' page in the 9/11 article. There are some rather mysterious things that took place on 9/11 that are held by a significant minority. C. Nelson 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't. Mysterious...in what way...planes hijacked, planes hit buildings, buildings fall down...no mystery.--MONGO 10:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There is good reason to display the video Loose Change (as seen in the link above). For one there is no proof that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the attacks. Even in the Wikipedia 9/11 article they say "The United States government determined (in part based on classified information) that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bear responsibility for the attacks." Good job that's a good reason. Why is it so classified? I suggest that we allow this video in the Video section of the 9/11 article. Since we should show that there are more than one global view to this tragedy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshots35 (talk • contribs)

MONGO; Mysterious things = anamonlies in/outside the lobbies of WTC before collapses [161], numerous ppl&firefighters using "explosive" when talking about the towers[162] (and rebuttal [163]), the way WTC7 falls[164] (though I disagree with the Physics professor on quite a few of the points he makes). Now, there is not enough evidence to suspect the official story and all the evidence supporting it as false, but it's enough to drive the conspiracy kooks crazy. The way this evidence is presented - it's usually missing the qualifiers, the contradictor evidence, and perspective - can be eloquently presented. C. Nelson 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Occams Razor

"History is written by those who hang heros."

Check the sources of the current 9/11 post. There is no scientific evidence to support these claims. Only that they are official. Where is the pride? Wikipedia is suppressing the truth by not following its own content criteria rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria

What are you afraid of? Look at the patriots of today, and ask if they are lying?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standish7 (talk • contribs)

Look...this is very important...we are just Wikipedia...you need to get ahold of the New York Times and the Washington Post and get them to look at this...I am convinced that they will have it on the front page of their papers just as soon as you get a hold of them.--MONGO 10:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is another guy you can bunch with me and call "nut-case" and other degrading words: [165]. Just keep doing that, keep ignoring WP:NPOV and keep saying "we stick to the White house theory, no mater what. And by the way, its not even a theory, its the truth with capital T". --Striver 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The page Striver links to above is titled "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story." Tom Harrison Talk 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, since Charlie Sheen says so, then all the rest of the evidence is null and void. Perhaps, as usual, Charlie Sheens comments were taken a bit out of context...I'd like to see the complete and original transcript. But even if he does belief there was govenernment coverup, it is just his opinion, and so what. A mediocre actor has an opinion, that would be a first I guess?--MONGO 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny, it calls him a credible source. A credible actor certainly, I enjoy his movies. A credible source for this subject, no. And on his credibility generally, he thought Za ginipiggu 2: Chiniku no hana (1985) was a real snuff film, for one. Esquizombi 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

here i was on my way to post something, but i figuered there is no point. --Striver 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're basically regurgitating the mainstream perspective on the story, but that's because it's the viewpoint that is closest to the truth. Many (but not all) of the conspiracy theories have been debunked and more are based purely on speculation (which doesn't belong in the wikipedia) or no evidence at all (like the remote controlled aircraft theory... i admit, strawman... but it's so easy when there are sooo many of them). C. Nelson 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

need these photos

http://www.september11news.com/InternationalImages.htm

And they're all copyrighted. And we don't need them. --Golbez 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

fine a link to them 132.241.245.49 06:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why. People can find them otherwise. I don't like linking to copyrighted material. --Golbez 07:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Victims of toxic dust inhalation

A woman, her name was Debra Reeve, has just died of lung cancer from toxic dust inhalation from working near ground zero after the attacks. She is the 20th person to die long after the attacks and have her death blamed on the dust cloud from the collapsing building. This controversy has received a little bit of notice over the previous years, and there's a couple pending court cases of victims alleging that the dust cloud caused them health problems. Should these people be included in the death tally (putting the total over 3,000)? LockeShocke 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why call it a controversy? Are there people advocating that such people die? The dust cloud was an irritant, and perhaps a carcinogen but not toxic. The key word is blame. People can get lung cancer from other sources, unless there's a finding in a court case that attributes Reeve's death to the terrorist attacks, the connection cannot be asserted in the article. Regarding the "death tally", the Wikipedia itself is not an official source. patsw 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.

I am new here, but after reviewing the archives, I see this guy MONGO having a monopoly on the "truth". As I read WP, the truth is not what is purported here. Rather it presents viewpoints that are verifiable (reported by reputable published sources) or which have prominent adherents. Yet MONGO et al muzzle viewpoints which have no less paucity and which are supported by similar or even more numerous verifiable sources.

I suggest that if a source is found in error repeatedly (an euphemism for caught in a lie) such sources should be discredited as a verifiable (using WP criterion above). This alone should cut the size of these articles significantly.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PLANES CAUSED THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC.

perhaps you mean "realistic models to cause the WTC to progressively collapse due to fires and loss of structural columns are non-existant" insert be cnelson

The government NIST report, cited elsewhere in this WP article is very clearly not intended to FIND OUT WHAT CAUSED the collapse (true). As a matter of fact, it fails the WP criteria above, since this group it has no role, history or expertise in building collapse or airplane crash investigations (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/nist_mission.htm), and its work was not peer reviewed. As a matter of fact (http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm), the one agency with expertise in both causal investigations and airplane crashes, the NTSB, was noticeably absent from the NIST "investigation". The NIST study details one POSSIBLE way the collapse COULD have happened (wouldn't they have the best opinion since they had the most evidence?).

To state that the NIST concluded that the aircraft crashing into the buildings or the resulting fire CAUSED the collapse is a misrepresentation of that report. The NIST report is a theory of how the collapse may have been caused by the crashes. I suggest those advancing POV read the NIST report.

It's easily provable that this report wasn't an investigation at all. NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", clearly outlines the steps for a proper investigation in agreement with the scientific process. (Maybe this is obvious to me becase I was a U.S. federal investigator)

(excerpts of NFPA 921-2001)

2.3.2 Define the Problem. ...a proper origin and cause investigation should be conducted. This is done by an examination of the scene and by a combination of other data collection methods, such as the review of previously conducted investigations of the incident, the interviewing of witnesses or other knowledgeable persons, and the results of scientific testing.

2.3.4 Analyze the Data (Inductive Reasoning). All of the collected and observed information is analyzed by inductive reasoning: the process in which the total body of empirical data collected is carefully examined in the light of the investigator’s knowledge, training, and experience.

This is not what was done. (tax payer $s at work)

Many are stating that there is not a shred of evidence for controlled demolition. I posit that there is not a shred of evidence for airplanes or fire causing the collapse. There are ample VERIFIABLE (by WP standards)sources for and which would justify the prominence of, a theory of explosives causing the collapse. (I read not less than six stories detailing the trail of the israelis who high-fived each other as the buildings collapsed, whose van had traces of explosives, and some of which were identified as intelligence agents). how is that linked with a possible demolition of the WTC?

Just because a majority of people do not have the intellectual latitude to challenge the appearances, this should not rightly, or by WP criteria, cause other verifiable and credible hypotheses from being given equal weight.

One person even likened disagreement with the majority view as denying the Holocaust! Hardly could I find more blatant dishonesty or partiality towards a single POV. Apparently, some here are more concerned with squashing opposing viewpoints while serving as standard bearers for a pre-ordained story line! Mudawangos 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow...no less than six stories about Israelis huh? How many stories are there not involving Israelis? Squiggyfm 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's one. Well, unless you buy in to the Jews in Space theory. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yawn.--MONGO 04:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I posit that there is not a shred of evidence for airplanes or fire causing the collapse. It was captured on video. Peter Grey 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Millions of people across the globe watched the planes hit the Towers on live television, and thousands of New Yorkers watched it happen with their own eyes. There is no question that two jumbo jets hit the Towers -- all of us watched in horror as it happened in real time. Claims to the contrary are just not credible, and have no place on Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Just because a majority of people do not have the intellectual latitude to challenge the appearances..." First of all, using big words doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Second, unless you arguement is based on a philosophy that nothing we percieve truly exists, then, yeah dude, the planes crashed into the towers. That's what those metal bird-like things you see in the video are. Controlled demolition my ass.... slimdavey


Guys, he didnt mean that the planes did not hit the tower, he said the hit did not cause the collapse, and that there is no evidence for that. The video show that the planes hit the tower, and that there was a great fireball that lasted 15 seconds and that the towers fell after 50 minutes. What he means is that there is no evidence that the 15 second fireball caused the frefall of the towers 50 minutes later. That conclusion is not scientific sound, neither is it peer viewed.

Here, the its now mainstream [167]. You can no longer pretend that it is a insignificant minority that hold that view, it is a significant minority that dispute that theory, and claiming the "fire brought down the towers" is factual is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, the majority of other parts of the world reject that theory. The people claiming fires made the tower fall have nothing more than a theory, they show no evidence to support it. --Striver 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That Prisonplanet website is a bunch of nonsense. You're just drawing at straws here. Prisonplanet...now that is a reliable reference source, for sure...not.--MONGO 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Prisonplanet? Im talking about CNN, not prisonplanet. CNN themselves mentioned Alex jones, he is more notable than you or i will ever be. --Striver 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, CNN is so good that the prestigious Gallup Poll has decided to sever all times with them. Maybe now that network and Ted Turner can use prison planet as their pollsters. Alex Jones is more infamous than me...and always will be due in no small part becuase of his nutty ideas about all this controlled demolition and conspiracy junk.--MONGO 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
lol, yeah, you are right, CNN is no good as a source, they propbably are just as much of crazy tin-foil-hat nutcases as me and Alex for doing that article... --Striver 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stive-man, glad to see you finally acknowledge yourself as a "crazy tin-foil-hat nutcase". I'll remember that. : ) --Morton devonshire 01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear that chewing on tin-foil can really make your teeth hurt. MortonsSockpuppet 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
lol, ill take that as a friendly joke :) --Striver 02:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple Comment

I have noticed that alot of this talk page has been devoted to conspiracy theories. Isn't this page simply to tell about the incident (not speculate about what happened), and provide a helpful link to a sub-page, which is only there for one thing: Conspiracy theories and speculation.

Now before you say anything else, I relize that also this page could be offending to some, however, but we must include something about what happened, and who did it. Therefore, if we just stick to one story, the government's claim (which I do not belive myself), we can reserve the other page exclusively for this type of talk.

I belive in using the way of the American court to decide matters like these: "The idea is true, until proven false." Or for lawyers: "The defendant is innocent until proven guilty."

Thank you for reading this, --Shark Fin 101 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill prove it false: A 15 second fireball does not cause metal to get so week that it bends. Not straight away, and most definitly not after 50 minutes. Hence, the idea is proven false. --Striver 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the fire went out after 15 seconds. --Golbez 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The initiall fireball, the one that is supposed to have generated the tremendous heat needed to bend steel. That fireball. It went out after 15 seconds, just look at any video of it. What was left was a usual fire with a normal temperature, nothing even remotly close to the heat needed to bend steel. Think about it, creating a 100 floor builidng that colapses from a 15 second fireball and 50 minutes ordinary fire, does that sound creadible? In my ears, that sounds like a nut-case conspiracy theory.--Striver 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Try taking a one meter wide steel column, expose it to 15 seconds of jet-fuel fire, and then burn furniture and computers beneath it for 50 minutes. Then go and see how elastic it is. It would even be hot, the sheer size of a 1 meter wide and X*10 meters long steel column will absorb and disipate so much heat that you wont even be able to boil water on it.--Striver 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, the 15 second fireball was not even in the building, most jetfuel went out of since the plane hit the building on a angle and not straight on. The amount that remained in the building went out after max 1 minute, if it didnt go out at the same pace as the fireball outside. Oh, and did i mention that the plane hit the building on a angle? It didnt even hit the support columns. --Striver 23:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold a nail over a burner flame for 60 seconds and try to bend it. Moreover, it was not an "ordinary" fire; the combustants were accelerated with fuel from the airliners. You have enough energy in that fuel load to keep a 10-ton aircraft in the air for five hours and move it 4000 miles, expended in 60 minutes. Whether expended in 15 seconds as you claim (falsely) or an hour as NIST indicates, that's more than enough to weaken steel.--Mmx1 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sure a iron nail will bend after 60 second. But why dont you try a 1 meter wide and x*10 meters long steel column? And why dont you try it for only 15 seconds? And try to hold the burner outside the building. And also, combust the entire fuel in a huge fireball, not in a consentrated and controled flame that gets optimal air. Then try to see if it bends.The velocity of the fuel is irrelevant, the fire does not get more heated for that, it only makes it move (and not burn the same stuff for the entire time). The entire fire burnt for 50 minutes-1 houre, depending on the tower, but the initial fuel fire was over in a maters of seconds or minutes, the rest was a ordinary fire. Just think about it, through fuel into a room and lit it, it will never in burn for more than 1-2 minutes. It will burn, and die, unless furniture and stuff take fire. Think "barbeque", the inintial burning fuel that lits the coal burns out in a mater of seconds, then maybe the coal gets litt and the heat continues due to the coal, not the initial fuel. --Striver 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm humoring this. Jet fuel is not an explosive. It doesn't burn instantaneously or in "15 seconds". To burn efficiently, it must be vaporized, as it is within the engine, or in a fuel-air bomb, which would have required an aresolizer on the plane. Rest assured if the entire fiel load were aresolized and ignited, the shockwave probably would have knocked the towers over. This "15 seconds" line is more bunk from people cooking up theories. Feel free to buy a can of kerosene and see for yourself. --Mmx1 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, but you aren't going to get this into the article. So why bother discussing it here? Discuss it on the conspiracy theory page.

Also, considering how fast those planes were going and how difficult it was to steer them, I am amazed that both managed to hit the one floor in each building laden with professionally installed explosives. Unless the whole building was wired, and in that case, you're talking a conspiracy of tens of thousands, instead of a conspiracy of 19. Which is more plausible? No, wait .. please don't answer that. --Golbez 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. I'm just sayin'. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the fireball: [168]. You can see in any film about it that it didnt last for more than 15 seconds. As you said yourself earlier, it had the speed of the airplane, it punched right through the building. And no, the shockwave from the fireball did hardly anything, because as you said yourself, its not an explosive. The "Can of kerosene" is a faulty analogy, try to take it and through it against the wall, hard enough to punch through it, and litt it in mid air. Then count the seconds it burns. That is just the "aresolizer" you said was necesary. Yes, the whole building was wired, one story falling would not account for anything, the building was held by its main columns in the center, the ones that wher not hit by anything. Even the "pancake" theory is useless, even if one floor would fall on the other, the floor under would not be heated by any fire and would have no problem receiving the extra weight, the builiding had a 600% redundancy. Just imagine that it needed to be able to withstand a earthquake, hurricane or any other nature disaster that could possibly happen during its lifetime. And yes, it was designed to receive a direct airplane hit, something that didnt even happen to the west tower, and strangly enough it fell before the north tower, even though it was hit 17 minutes later. And even if the floor would colapse on eachother, it wouldent affect the middle columns, they where not supported by the floors, the main columns would stand up independently. And in either case, the top floors would not fall as they did, since they were held up by the main support columns, and not by the floor beneath. But as happend, the top floores fell in the exact same second as the other floores, even though they where supported by the main collumns. For you information, there was 46 main support columns, each one maid of steel, one meter wide and very long. They where so incredibly large that they couldnt even creat them in the US, they where manufactured in Japan and shiped to the US. --Striver 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok... great. So you've proved the official story wrong. Got a replacement that everyone will buy? Please. Did you not read any of my first paragraph? Go back and read it. This discussion is being dragged into a place were it should be moved over to the Conspiracy page.
This article is simply here to tell what happened, when it happened and where it happened.
Is that not correct?
Thank you...--Shark Fin 101 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with you 100%, this article should only tell "what happened, when it happened and where it happened", not take sides on disputed evenst such as "why it happened", "who made it happened" and "how did it happened". As is now, this articles does that, it claims the offcial conspircacy theory to be factual and dedicates 0.5% of the article to represent all other views. --Striver 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because it ensures that we don't provide undue weight to idiotic notions of controlled demolition.--MONGO 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Mongo. Stop it. You are violating wikipedian laws.. are you not? You are calling a very possible idea crazy.
On a different track... Quote from Striver:As is now, this articles does that, it claims the offcial conspircacy theory to be factual and dedicates 0.5% of the article to represent all other views.
So, how can we fix this... does everyone else like this point of view (This article is simply here to tell what happened, when it happened and where it happened.)? Surely since we have this many people on the talk page we can make this happen (and get back to the featured article status).
Thank you, --Shark Fin 101 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists.

What do people think of my compromise edit? JoshuaZ 05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of dumping the entire section. An encyclopedia should be an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Regardless, your edit was a lot better than having other editors overwrite my alteration by completely reverting me. Maybe next time, I'll simply dismantle this entire article and rid it all of the nonsense and misinformation. Factual is not POV...no one, ah, no one has been able to provide any (that's any) factual evidence to support one single charge by the conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We used to include a wikilink there to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. I'm not sure who/when the wikilink was removed, but think the link should be there in some fashion. Whether its Conspiracy theorists, Researchers, Amateur researchers, ... I don't have so much preference one way or the other. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Common viewpoints are encyclopedic, and content in wikipedia is decided by WP:V and WP:NPOV generally, not WP:what the truth actually is. In this case, many people believe that there was a conspiracy, many people have written about it and discussed such ideas. It is similar to how we have articles about creationism and homeopathy even though they are complete junk also. JoshuaZ 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I can live with the proposed changes. Though I still feel that conspiracy theorists is POV (regardless if you and I believe they are) because well, it is often used to discredit the views of others. People do not take the work of conspiracy theorists seriously. Whether you want to believe in them or not, it does not change the fact that some theories are presented by "researchers", though they may be "amatuer." And, it is POV to believe the acknowledged 9/11 story is 100% factual. Using the term "factual" denotes completely factual, it is not possible to say without a doubt that every component of the mainstream story is factual. Pepsidrinka 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Factual is not POV...I was at GZ for 6 weeks (9/15/01 to 11/4/01) and I have read a lot of the websites that disagree with the U.S. Government "version" and yet to see anything aside from POV. It is possible to say without a doubt that the U.S. Government findings are correct. Did you know that 600 reporters at least were on this story the moment it happened and none of them have found a single piece of evidence to support the speculation that there was a governement coverup, that there was controlled demolition or that Martians did it. Why wouldn't the press publish things that proved a coverup happened? Maybe the National Enquirer would. There is such a thing as editorial excellence and this article is far from it. WP:NOT, absolutely...we do not give weight to something that has no weight. Don't blind revert my additions again.--MONGO 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing your reference that makes the assertion that there were "600 reporters...on this story the moment" the first plane struck the first building. You being at Ground Zero for six weeks does nothing to convince me of your argument. And, I did not "blind revert" your edits, unless we have different definitions of "blind reverting". Once again, let me maintain that despite my views, please assume good faith that I am trying to maintain a NPOV instead of trying to push my own. Pepsidrinka 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You provide further substance to why I would not want you to be an admin. You may have well as rolled back my edit...that's what you did. 600 reporters, probably I am wrong...more like 6,000. I can find out and get a ballpark figure...does it have to be exact? How many would you guess were involved in questioning surviviors etc...your not being at ground zero does nothing to support your argument...got any proof that the "offical findings" are not factual? Why do I have to refute the findings all but the wackiest agree with and then have to provide the facts to you. You find me evidence that supports anything the conspiracy theory windbags have to sell, then we'll talk.--MONGO 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no this wasn't the same as a rollback, because a rollback, as you very well know, leaves no explanation of why the revert took place. I also don't see how my current RfA has anything to do with this article. If you don't think I should be an admin, that is fine, make your voice heard loud and clear on the RfA page. Let's try to keep this page germane to the topic at hand. Now, it is obvious from your edit summaries for your resposnes to my comments (i.e., "bs" and "baloney") that nothing I can say will convince you to change your mind. Therefore, I'm going to leave the issue up to a consensus of editors on this page to decide whether either of our edits are POV or not, or whether another way of wording the sentence is better. Pepsidrinka 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think an admin candidate should call my edit POV when it isn't. It is the same POV of the majority of the world that has access to a free press, democracy, civil liberties and it is the findings of the 25,000+ federal, state city and reputable outside investigators that have worked on this case. It is so absurd that your complete reversion of my small change is both labelled as POV and that you summarily now argue that I am somehow POV with the use of the words "consipracy theorists" and "factual". No one has provided one ounce of verifiable proof that contradicts the findings of the these researchers. All the nonsense posted by those that refute the evidence is from non peer reviewed websites that list a few complete non experts who are armed only with their opinions. No, your continued inability to see that I am not POV when I support the factual and scientifically known explanation for the events of 9/11 gives me great pause...what did you think, that I made this stuff up?--MONGO 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: MONGO's comments - While I don't buy the conspiracy theories, we can't just cut the section and completely ignore their viewpoint. It's a fact that some people (however small the minority) question the official, factual, mainstream... account. We can't at all verify their theories, but we can verify that they say "x". We just need to very briefly say that these people say "x", refer to the main conspiracy article, and leave it at that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pepsidrinka asked me to come here and take a look at the arguments on the talk page. Mongo, I think you're losing your balance. You can't just threaten other editors and insist that any views contradicting your own be removed. I understand your frustration, I think -- I share your view of the events and think that the conspiracy theories are tin-foil-hat kookery. If you worked at Ground Zero for six weeks, of course this is a highly emotional topic for you. That said, you aren't helping your own side by trying to impose your will. That suggests that you don't trust the strength of your case to make your points for you. I don't think that's the impression you want to give. Your wikistress levels must be stratospheric by now -- why don't you just take a break from this article for a week? You may come back and find that there are others who will shoulder the load of keeping the article factual and that you don't have to be Atlas. Or you may find that it's drifted into strange waters, in which case you could easily rally support for getting it back on track. Zora 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not losing my balance, Zora. Thanks for questioning my motives. I have not threatened any others here...I would very much like to see some diffs on this matter. I am not at a high wikistress level and I do not appreciate your insinuation that this may be the case. I do not trust any admin candidate that reverts my simple change to this article in which I changed "amateur researchers" to "conspiracy theorists" and "mainstrean" to "factual". Pepsidrinka then edit summaries that this is a "story" andf that I am "POV". How on earth can I be the one who is POV when what I am writing jives with the findings by every reputable researcher on this planet, every free government, every country with access to civil liberties, a free press and a decent educational system? What part of WP:NOT do you not understand? Wikipedia does not give undue weight to things that have no weight. There is no weight aside from opinions that contradict the official findings. Now, had I comletely removed the link to the subarticle and the entire passage I could appreciate some raised eyebrows, but I didn't...all I did was alter the passage. Looks like you're picking sides, not being neutral.--MONGO 08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale

First, the impact and the fire both contributed to the failure of the structure. Most of the conspiracy theory arguments are based on the suggestion that one or the other by itself was not sufficient to cause failure. Possibly that's true, but since the impact and the fire both happened, it's completely irrelevant.

The video clearly shows that the point of structural failure for each tower was the point of impact. There is no way explosives could have been planted there. They could not be planted before the impact because it was impossible to know precisely which floors would be the impact site. Planting explosives after the impact would require people

  1. able to calculate the necessary quantities and locations of explosive charges without knowing the details of the impact damage
  2. able to enter the buildings and carry a significant quantity of explosives as well as oxygen and breathing equipment, all without being seen
  3. willing to plant explosives in a very large fire (an acre in area and across several floors)
  4. willing to commit the premeditated murder of the remaining victims and rescue workers still in the building
  5. willing to sacrifice their own lives
Peter Grey 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely...it's a fairy tale...I was reading this section from Controlled Demolition, Inc...[169]..it states that the J.L. Hudson Department Store is "At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded."...the article goes on to state that, " Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design." and also discusses that they had to torch many steel columns to weaken them and, "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."...now that sounds like a lot of work to implode one building less than half the size of either one of the WTC...and this company is the foremost one in the world in controlled demolition. There is no theory about controlled demolition that will explain how a project this massive would have gone undetected.--MONGO 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the South Towers main support columns where not even hit, the plane hit the building on a angle, ejecting most of its fuel outside the building. So the "the impact and the fire both contributed" is not valid to the South Tower. Sure, some exterior columns where knocked off, but they didnt do much inte the first place, just look at the picture: [170]. The outer columns that where not knocked out are in perfect condition, every one of the is parallel to the other. Except for the whole, theres not even the slightest sign of compromise in the outer columns structural integrity due to the hit. The outer columns not being affected, it is imposible to claim that the 47 interrior core columns would have been effected, they where magnitudes larger, and most importantly: 'they where not hit in the first place. Regarding the fires, take a look at the girl on the picture: [171], do you see any signt of any great fire? If they where any flames, they where not on the part that was hit and not big enough to scare off the girl.

Further, if the hit was indeed a important factor to the collaps, why was it not the North Tower that collapsed first? It was hit with a direct hit, going straight to the core columns, hower, it fell 10 minutes after the South Tower, even though it was hit 17 minutes before the South Tower. This proves that the hit was insignificant, the building not receiving the direct hit and having most of its jet fuel ejected lasted 27 minutes less.

But most importantly: Not even the official version claims that the hit gave any significant damage. They specualte that it might have blown of some of the firecoating on some of the columns, not that it maters sine i proved above that even without any firecoating on any of the columns, not even a single column would get much hoter that the boiling point of water. Not that it would mater att al anyway, considering that there was 46 other columns in case one of them would become elastic, the building had 600% redundancy.

The explosives where planed long ahead, there was 24/7 construction, of course, since the two towers where basicly a huge city with 40 000+ people in them. There was a some major contruction work the weeks before the attack, and guees who was the the cheif of security in the buildings: Marvin Bush. What a conicidence!

So there was no problem puting in the charges in advance, considering that there was a normal procedure of 24/7 reparirs and that Marvin Bush was in charge. The explosives where on multiple floors, from top to botom, as can be seen in the any video of the fall. For example, see [172], the charges go of before the fall even getting close to it.

All the arguements regarding the imposibility of planting the charges after the hit are widely employed to prove that the implosion of building 7 was also planed far ahead, and not as Larry Silverstein said:

I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

Face it, the 40+ floor building seven was not even hit by anything, even less having any jet fuel in it, and it still imploded. Did Usama do that? Oh, and for you guys that dont belive the USA government is capable of doing big Covert operations: The Manhattan Project:

The project's origins were in fears during the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating such weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program which began in 1939, the Manhattan Project would eventually employ over 130,000 people and cost a total of nearly $2 billion USD ($20 billion in 2004 dollars based on CPI), and resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites operated in secret.

--Striver 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You got anything new? We've seen all this before. Where's the proof? I don't know how you think this stuff is going to go in this article, cause it isn't...take it to the conspiracy theory pages. If you're so convinced you have the truth, get ahold of the major newspapaers and let them put this on the front page. I'll be waiting.--MONGO 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a great rebutal. Where did you stop reading? --Striver 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm tryiny to stay out of this, but the Manhattan project comparison is so poor I feel a need to respond. First, the vast majority of the project occured in the middle of nowhere, not in a crowded city. Second, among many in the physics community, the existence of the project was close to an open secret(see I believe the Feynman biography Genius where this is mentioned), third, the Manhattan project did not stay secret indefinitely but only for a very short time, and yet no one from any such conspiracy has come forward at this time. In any event, this is all highly irrelevant since anything we argue about on the talk page is almost by definition original research and so runs afoul of WP:OR. I therefore suggest that all editors chill. JoshuaZ 14:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Posted above by me is not original research...it is directly from the webpages of Controlled Demolition, Inc. It is properly attributed and definitely not original research.--MONGO 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Connecting that to the difficulty at blowing up the trade centers is OR since the source doesn't make that connection. JoshuaZ 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not original researche...the building menetioned is the largest building ever imploded...it is significantly smaller than any of the WTC buildings...if it was that much work to implode the largest building ever, then the task of doing the same to WTC would have been signifacnt bigger...simply analogy. I merely cited the largest building ever brought down, by the foremost company that does this type of work anywhere.--MONGO 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is OR, it runs afoul of "it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" and "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." WP:OR is quite strict, and this is included. JoshuaZ 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about...it is not in the article...it is just on the discussion page as an analogy. Are you telling me that the webpage of this company is original research...how are they not a reputable source of the info...do I also need to find a media link of the event as backup? If it took this much work to bring down a building that is less than a quarter the mass of either one of the WTC towers and even smaller than WTC7, as a comparative analogy, what amount of work would be needed to be done to bring the WTC towers and WTC7. There is no original research about what the largest building brought down was as it is linked right there to that companies website.--MONGO 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
My point in bringing up that it is OR is that it can't go in the article. The talk pages are for improving the articles. Since a) none of this can go in the article due to WP:OR and b) no one is going to convince anyone else on this talk page, this is not a good use of the talk page. JoshuaZ 15:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JoshuaZ...you are completely mistaken. It is not original research if stated as "According to Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the largest building ever imploded was the 439 foot tall J.L. Hudson Department Store." and then linked to that webpage...this is not a violation of original research. It isn't very useful in this article but I am going to use it in the conspiracy theory article. You also need to review the undue weight clause of WP:NOT. The reason the conspiracy theory non science is barely mentioned here is because to do so violates undue weight. As far as this not being a good use for this talk page...what do you think talk pages are for?--MONGO 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The desired implication is OR. that is the argument the argument that 1) the tallest building every imploded was 439 feet 2) the world trade center was much taller 3 therefore the world trader would have been nearly impossible to implode. The "therefore" in the third step makes it OR. I don't know whether the article gives undue weight to the conspiracy theories and I will need to think about that. As for your last point, talk pages are not for general free for all discussions and arguments, we have things like Usenet for that. Wikipedia has limited server space and we should use talk pages for things that are relevant to the articles. We are after all trying to make an encyclopedia here. JoshuaZ 15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
After having looked at the article, I don't see any issue of undue weight, it is only three sentences in the article for a fairly commonly discussed/believed idea. JoshuaZ 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's an analogy. It is commonly used thoroughout Wikipedia. It is not original research. Talk pages are for the general free for all of discussing article content and that is exactly what we are doing...what on earth do you think the talk pages are here for. Wikipedia does not have limited server space...server space is cheap...it's the servers that aren't. We are, afterall, trying to make an encyclopedia here...then get busy...I have 140 articles and stubs....and not one of them is POV. They are all referenced and neutral and do not give undue weight to conspiracy theories and unproven innuendo. We don't have to even say "therefore" as far as the comparative analogy...the reader can see that on their own. In other words, we give due weight to what is proven...A: the largest building ever imploded was 439 feet...B: each WTC tower was 1,350 feet approx. NO as i said...that is why it isn't in here...we don't give undue weight.--MONGO 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The analogy is attempting to make an argument, it is therefore OR. Please reread WP:OR. As for servers, whenever a talk page is larger it takes the servers longer to load it and increases the load on the servers. It would have been more accurate to say that used server space on a single page is indirectly limited. And I'm curious as to where you see a claim that talk pages are for general free for all discussion. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. I'm also now highly confused about your comments about undue weight, what exactly are you asserting? JoshuaZ 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop indenting to infinity. The talk page can be archived. We don't have much of the conspiracy theory rhetoric here because it is unproven allegations and silly innuendo...it would violate the undue weight clause of WP:NOT to provide more coverage of these silly notions than we do...hence the sub articles which discuss these issues in more detail. I've seen talk pages at over 350kb and there is at least one article I know of that is longer than that. Of course this isn't a discussion forum , but we are still discussing issues related to this article so what on earth are you talking about....oh nevermind.--MONGO 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i have no problem with that. Then on the other hand, im not saying the operation of setting the buildings with charges employed 130 000 people. Im bringing this up since there have been several calls on this talk page for evidence that discredits the official version. I just provided it, and MONGO gave me a brilliant rebutal to my points. --Striver 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Was that a personal attack? It's been refutted over and over...what can you tell me about Robert Bloom, Striver.--MONGO 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to say something?--Striver 15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I want to know about Robert Bloom, Striver.--MONGO 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get that name from? Did i mention it? How is it relevant to this article? What is your point?--Striver 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


If it is a problem it was WP:CIVIL not WP:NPA. In any case, it was borderline. As I said earlier, I strongly suggest everyone to calm down. JoshuaZ 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. What was borderline and who.--MONGO 14:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I misread your question. When you asked "Was that a personal attack?" I thought you were refering to Striver's comment that your rebuttal was "brilliant" which in the context looked like sarcasm. Did I misunderstand your question?
Yes, I see, I was asking Striver if when he referred to my response as "brilliant" he was trying to insult me...that is what I meant.--MONGO 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • the South Towers main support columns where not even hit - The exterior columns (the ones the plane went through) were the main support columns. There's been interviews with the designers and the floor plans have been shown on television. The outer columns that where not knocked out are in perfect condition - Someone, during the fire, went out there and inspected them? That could only be done from the inside of the building. Peter Grey 15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this are the support columns: [173] [174], the ones in the middle. This is a closeup of one of 47 middle support colums [175]. Compare it to a closeup of a exterior column [176], they where not even solid [177].

The engineer who designed the building says they're support columns. If you don't understand why a load-bearing column would be hollow, go find a mechanics of deformable solids textbook. Peter Grey 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the woman in the hole, it clearly shows that there was no "raging inferno" at the tower, there where no temperatures that could bend steel. No human can survive being even remotly close to a fire that bends the core support columns, but in the picutre of the woman, the hole is picth black, no fire in sight at all.

Here is a another picture of a explosive going of before the fall even reached it [178]--Striver 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver, can you and Mongo please take this argument somewhere else? Any arguments on the talk pages that go to factual issues are by nature WP:OR. This is therefore a waste of the talk page (incidentally, using that photo as evidence is ridiculous since so many things could cause that puff such as structural collaspse starting to occur in that section). Now, please take it elsewhere. JoshuaZ 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Striver an I do not have to take this elsewhere...we are discussing article content...why would we discuss article content elsewhere?--MONGO 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This is again going back to the same old conspiracy theory. Can we PLEASE move this to the sub-page, and devote more time to telling what happened, when it happened, and where it happened? Nothing on this article should contain any speculating, all should go on the sub-page if it goes anywhere.
Thank you, --Shark Fin 101 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything i wrote is sourcable to multiple persons in the 9/11 truth movement. I wrote it since MONGO is claiming that the 9/11 truth movement have no valid issues to raise, so i raised some of them on a very narrow topic: "physical evidence of demolition". I could expand the issues to at least twice as many points, and there are at least 20 more issues to go. None of the points i have raised have been successfully refuted, minsters, actors, scholars, former CIA, 50% of New York, 80% of Pakistan, all of them reject the official version on valid grounds, yet it is still presented as factual. That is a blatant vioaltion of WP:NPOV as you will ever get. --Striver 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That 50% of New Yorkers is, again, a misquote. 50% think the feds may have known about the unpcoming event and didn't do enough to stop it...but this has nothing to do with a twist as you would have it that the feds were behind the events, orchestrating it...80% of Pakistanis do not agree with the U.S. Government findings....so what...statistics do not determine the truth in such matters...evidence does...do you have one ounce of proof that will stand the test of cross examination that there was contolled demolition...no...I see, that's is of course a NO, right? Oh, that's right...Charlie Sheen thinks the feds covered things up...yeah, that's it...just so you know, Striver, if you polled 1,000 Americans about whether they believe in UFO's, you'd probably find a lot who do...yet there is not one shred of proof of their existence.--MONGO 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. [179]

The key word is "that they consciously failed ", not "that didn't do enough to stop it" Its a HUGE difference, and the missquote comes not from me. The evidence is easy, here are a few:

  • The builidng fell att free fall speed. That is imposible, unless there was explosives involved
  • The fall produced a huge dust cloud. Such amount of energy production is imposible, unless there was explosives involved
  • 15 second fires does not bend steel columns, specialy not when most of the fuel is consumed outside the building.
  • There was no realy big fire to begin with, it was cool enough for a woman to stand on the entry hole of the building
  • There was pools of melted steel almost a month after the fall. That is imposible, unless there was explosives involved
    • Nothing's impossible, this is just very unlikely. But there could still be an explanation outside of explosives. Most of it wasn't entirely melted either, just really hot... here's the NASA photo [180]... another photo [181]... commentary [182]... and video [183]
  • The wrong tower fell first
    • Why? Which one was supposed to fall first?
  • Multiple ejections are seen on the videos, only fully acconter for by the explosion explanation.
    • Totally true... anybody got an explanation besides explosives? These things happen thirty floors below the pancaking... really weird.
  • Building 7 was not hit by anything, yet it also fell at freefall speed
  • The owner of all 3 buildings admited that they decided to "pull" one of the buildings.
    • Silverstein indeed said, "pull", but was referring to the firefighters. They pulled the building of it's firefighters... there are plenty of debunking sites on people who misquote him... Besides, who would admit it in an interview if they really did do it? Even those that think the buildings were blown up don't use this as a valid point [184]
  • and the aditional large list of things that are not related to physical evidence, such as NORAD standing down, Pentagon being blind, the Put options and much more...
    • Don't forget the damage to the lobby... the windows were all broken and huge marble panels had been broken off the walls. Was this from a plane crash 80 floors above? [185]

--Striver 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) --Comments in bold were made by C. Nelson 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

section break

as for "using that photo as evidence is ridiculous since so many things could cause that puff such as structural collaspse starting to occur in that section", its not valid, since the fall was not even close to the puffs, the structural was 100% stable at the time of the puffs being ejected. It was at leas 20-30 floors in between the puff and the fall. Even if it was as you said, why did the force get ejected through a single window 20-30 floors below?--Striver 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

because the core collapsed faster than the exterior. It wasn't uniformly pancaking, the inside collapsed faster [186]. You can tell because the TV antenna starts to fall before the building does. So while the outside looks fine, you have shit tumbling down the core floors ahead of the exterior. The overpressure is what's ejecting stuff through the windows. --Mmx1 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • According to NIST, this is a claim they specifically debunk. You're assuming that because the antenna dropped first that the core of the building fell first, but that's not always correct. They say that if you look from other angles, the antenna appears to drop because its falling away, because the top portion of building is falling away from the viewer. C. Nelson 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, I saw nothing of that kind being said in the link you presented. I further find the idea quite implausable. Could you source that statement?--Striver 02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The site is a companion to a 1-hour special that Nova ran on PBS; you should be able to find it on a torrent site, titled "Why the towers fell". I'll try to find another link. --Mmx1 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should be intresting. Im intrested on all points of view. --Striver 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


How about this? It's in the second to last paragraph. It's from a conspiracy site, and was originally in the New York Times. --Mmx1 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC) --Mmx1 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain these anamolies

There are some things that are difficult to explain.

Anamoly #1 - The lobby of the South Tower

  • An image containing frames from the following two videos [187]
  • Timecode from 15 seconds to 30 seconds into this video
  • 45:14 to 45:45 in Loose Change (BTW, I don't recommend the video because it makes a lot of bad points)

Anamoly #2 - Multiple Puffs Occurring Below Collapse Please explain C. Nelson 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

C. Nelson 05:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, all anomolies and whacked out theories are totally irrefutably debunked over at Collapse of the World Trade Center. I don't see nuthin about no suicide hijack survivors here though. Excuse me, there is something about the BBC mistakenly or something reporting some. Whats up with all that anyway?SkeenaR 05:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true...yeah...thanks to Uncle Sam.--MONGO 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SkeenaR, I don't see how the wikipedia page, Collapse of the World Trade Center, cleears up the specific points I made citing video and photographic evidence. I read through the article, but could you quote the parts that explain damage to the lobby or the puffs? Yes, like I said, I agree that Loose Change has really stupid theories; the BBC posted an apology to the story about the living suicide hijackers, stating that the people they found and wrote about in the article had the same name but were different from the hijackers. But I was using it for the video evidence evidence of the collapse. I, just like almost anyone who watches the isolated segments of video would, have unanswer questions about why these two anamolies occurred. I would greatly like an explanation.

C. Nelson 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that page doesn't clear anything up. It's just opinion, nothing more. What I was wondering is if the feds ever managed to explain the living suicide hijackers. SkeenaR 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the feds published photos, not just names, of living people as suicide hijackers. Did they ever clear this up? I'm curious about this. SkeenaR 04:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SkeenaR, I believe the BBC article was a simple mixup... the people alive had identical names with the hijackers. It looks bad for the BBC, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading an apology. In any case, here's someone that debunks it fairly well [188]. C. Nelson 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's only to do with a BBC article, but I could be wrong. Thanks for this. I'll check it out. Shouldn't there be a list of these perpetrators? SkeenaR 04:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

84%!

84% of 40 000 voters agree with Alex Jones! See CNN voting poll [189]

This article violates WP:NPOV! --Striver 23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."
"the US government covered up the real events" != agree with Alex jones. Alex jones goes waaaay beyond that statement. --Mmx1 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why stop there? 100% of 33600 voters agree with Alex Jones. Tom Harrison Talk 23:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

" Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?"

agree with Charlie Sheen=agree with Alex Jones --Striver 23:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's "agree with Charlie Sheen that X happened", not "agree with Charlie Sheen's views on 9-11"

Why get worked up about it? SkeenaR 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear what Tom Cruise thinks. Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear how many people agree with what Ilona Staller thinks about it. DanielDemaret 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point; She may actually be better-qualified than either of them. Tom Harrison Talk 01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Art Bell is the true authority on this. Get it right. SkeenaR 01:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I heard Sheen was on Alex Jones and that it was turning into a story, I KNEW I was going to start hearing about Cruise. Ad Hominem. As long as it wasn't agreement with officialdom and mainstreamdom it wouldn't have mattered what Sheen said. Wikidiscussion seems to have a lot in common with the media circus, namely its predictability in situations like this. But that's the thing. People can say Sheen isn't reliable or that he isn't an engineer or whatever, but as he said, he would like people to challenge him on his facts instead of using cheap smear tactics. Striver might appreciate responses like that as well. SkeenaR 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlie on CNN: [190]

ALEX ON CNN: [191]

--Striver 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One major problem with the poll is that it asks whether people think that the US government covered something up. I am surprised there was not 100% agreement. Most people believe that covering up things is what the US government does. That is why it has to share power with congress, courts and press to help keep an eye on things. Had the question been on any particular conspiracy theory instead - say for example : "Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that no plane crashed into the Pentagon?" - then I am would bet that the numbers in favour would have been less than a majority. The crux is this: What are they covering up, and does it really matter to the general interpretation of this article? I have several doubts on many issues in the 9/11 issues, but I still believe that the article, at least last time I read it, seemed to show approximately what happened based on the best evidence we have so far. DanielDemaret 18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost conspiracies

Serious question: Is there any reason this line of argument is here and not 9/11 conspiracy theories or Collapse of the World Trade Center? There is a certain value in catologuing the intuition-based misconceptions about structural failures (sort of encyclopedic and sure to be entertaining), but it's not clear to me where the best place is. Not this article, obviously, but some consensus as to where it belongs might be helpful. Perhaps there should be an article dedicated to the topic - people other than the conspiracy nuts are probably curious about it. Peter Grey 02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This obviously isn't the best place for discussion about structural failure or conspiracy theories, I think simply that where things are unproven it should be noted. Reported on by Fox doesn't count as verifiability. SkeenaR 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Peter Grey is right. This is not the place to address most of these topics. 9/11 conspiracy theories is actively edited, as are several other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 03:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actively edited? Oh boy! Sounds kind of like "get the hell out of here". SkeenaR 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure that...all your group is yapping about is conspiracy theory rhetoric so why bother trying to voice that here...it's not going to be put in the article.--MONGO 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhetoric rhetoric. What group are you refering to? I thought I asked at least a couple of legitimate questions since I've been around here. I'm not going to push POV. I admit I could have been wrong about Tom's comment by the way. SkeenaR 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I meant 'Come on over' not 'Go away.' I follow both pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Look at all the evidence, not just from shifty websites on the net. Not to sound like I'm equating Bigoot here...but if you try and google Bigfoot, you're going to find virtually no websites about that situation on the net that are reliable witness to Bigfoot. No proof exists for this being...none. There is a little tidbid here and another morsel over here...but none of it makes a meal. The same is true with the events of 9/11. Many folks are hateful of the U.S. Government, many are unhappy with the fact that the hijackers were Muslim extremists, many just want to believe the fantastic. I work for the governement...my employers are simply too screwed up to pull this off as a controlled demolition stunt...no covert operation could possibly have done it...it would have been infinitely easier to fake the Apollo moon landings. UFO's are more plausible than a government conspiracy or controlled demolition on 9/11. Charlie Sheen's personal opinion on this matter is worthless, as is the original research of all these conspiracy theory websites.--MONGO 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but do you really think all those sites are completely worthless? I mean, for example, a lot of those sites were trying to spread the word that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this was in the leadup to the invasion. It seems that while a lot of stuff is far fetched, fairly often the stuff is factual but the mainstream media won't touch it. If this would have been payed attention to it could possibly have prevented a lot of bad things from happening don't you think? I think some of these things should be payed attention to. Some would say that stuff like this [192] is the latest version. While not necessarily automatically believing it, how can one say that there is no value in listening to opinions such as this? SkeenaR 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit unfair to say that all the websites supporting something other than the U.S. government findings are totally devoid of any decent questions or hypothesis. I apply the National Enqurier approach...some of the stuff they print appears to be factual and authoritative...the rest doesn't, so where is the line drawn. How can we use private websites to anything other than quote..as this website says X and the rebuttal that claim...this is the main reason the conspiracy theory webpages related to this events exist, and a big reason why I don't personally edit in them much. We would turn this article into a comment/rebuttal/coment on and on and it quickly becomes unencyclopedic. As far as the prison planet link you provide, it is the opinion of someone that may or may not be notable, but I don't see it as anything other than an opinion. He also mistakenly states that Tommy Franks resigned soon after the Iraq Invasion, which is not the case. He was still on board another year, and retired, not resigned, as he was a full general and it was time to retire or rotate to a desk job in Washington. I never once heard Franks say that the Iraq war was a mistake. I've also read that at least three Iraqi Generals claimed that the small stores of WMD's that Iraq did have were sent to Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid abord trucks and planes after Syria had a natural disaster. You knows about these kinds of things for sure.--MONGO 09:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is an encyclopedia and it shoud contain encyclopedic information. But the mainstream media and the government are highly unreliable as sources on these issues. They have proven that much. We are always being sold things on false information and it's only reported as such after it's too late. You know what I mean? SkeenaR 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of these non peer reviewed websites come close to the level of reliability of reports prepared by tens of thousands of investigators. As I said, the media would be all over this issue if there had been any conspiracy stuff to have any factual evidence to support it.--MONGO 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll just have to disagree on this one I guess. It was guys like Scott Ritter who were trying to sound the alarm in the example I gave the first time, there obviously was truth to it and it was only crazy conspiracy sites that payed any real attention to it. The media was not all over this, and there has been a big price. It doesn't seem that tens of thousands of investigators are enough, at least from these sources. True? SkeenaR 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about...you mean the sources from silly websites that the average kindergardener would laugh at? Scott Ritter...ah yeah, the angry ex employee that not only did a lousy job, but got fired...that's the part THEY don't tell you...he was canned! So his revenge was to misrepresent what he found...and you're incorrect as the media was all over Scott Ritter's story soon as he went public.--MONGO 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"While the motives behind Ritter’s criticism of US-Iraq policy have been called into question by some, he is notable as being one of the only highly knowledgeable commentators on the Iraq WMD issue who correctly predicted that Iraq did not possess any significant WMD’s prior to the 2003 war." [193] The Wikipedia article says Ritter resigned as weapons inspector. Also, how is saying "there are no WMD's there" a misrepresentation. If you can tell me, I would really like to know. Otherwise it seems pretty straight forward. SkeenaR 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, was he right? The facts that the WMD's are not there are linked to them not finding any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there...I think you're still trying to link the conspiracy theory stuff with Bush desire to go to war. It sure would be nice if any of these websites had any proof whatsoever...for if there were indeed government involvement with all this, I'd be most displeased. So please, provide some proof of government coverup...even simply collusion will do...I have yet to find any.--MONGO 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to put this stuff in the article, I'm not even saying that there for sure was a government coverup, I was merely trying to make the point that the government and mainstream media have proven themselves to be lousy sources for these articles. Why do you need rock solid proof of a coverup before you begin to question these sources? They're not dependable. Please don't say something like "well than, you should believe David Icke" because that's obviously no good either. This discussion might be a bit off topic, but I think it's relevant as far as sources are concerned. And I mean no offense by this, but saying that "The facts that the WMD's are not there are linked to them not finding any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there..." seems like pseudoscience-by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability) SkeenaR 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing all you want about this matter, but as I said, I have examined the private websites with an open eye and I'm sorry, they simply are not based on much more than asking questions...they provide no answers and no proof. That doesn't mean they have no right to question any more than you or anyone else does.--MONGO 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Asymetrical POV

This quotatiton is for Nikodemos' profile... I thought it very appropriate.

I believe that one of the major sources of POV in wikipedia articles is what I call asymmetric controversy. An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it. Thus, an asymmetric controversy can be described as any controversial idea that is popular enough to attract a band of loyal supporters to defend it on wikipedia, but not popular enough to attract critics. Paradoxically, this means that any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their views. One single-minded user with a lot of time on his hands can hold off many disinterested users at once.

Quite appropriate for those doubting the official account. They may have some interesting points, but they're in a small and concerned minority. Don't let your concern drive you to edit an article from one POV. Here's a good link with common sense about many of the conspiracy theories [194]. C. Nelson 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just another website with a list of "odd coincidences" at best...hardly a scientific paper...it looks rather adolescent to be honest. Did you ever see the one comparing Kennedy with Lincoln and how they tried to show some connection with the two assassinations due to weird things like the two having V.P.'s with the last name of Johnson, and how many of the names involved in the circumstance regarding both situations had the same number of letters? You know, silly stuff like that. That's what this 911myths website looks like to me. Just a bunch of worthless info...just like Charlie Sheens opinion...who cares.--MONGO 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Have another look ;) SkeenaR 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say, that was a intresting link, the first one i see that acctualy tries to talk about the issues. I dont agree with everything they stated, but they made a few good points.--Striver 23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"The truth deserves nothing less" SkeenaR 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i love it when someone does not even bother to read something, but decides its conpiracy-crap :D --Striver 02:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that Zacarias Moussaoui has plead in court that he knew of the impending attack on the WTC and that he was supposed to pilot one the planes, it seems that the conspiracy bunk is just that, a load of bunk. Other testimonials claimed that Moussaoui was actually supposed to be in a second wave, but todays court testimony by Moussaoui in which he admitted being directly involved in this matter sems to not even be mentioned by the conspiracist theory folks...gee, I wonder why.--MONGO 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard about this testimony. Is it reliable? SkeenaR 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy folks are on it.[195][196] SkeenaR 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sure its just as reliable as Timothys testimony, that is 0 (zero). Timotys testimony is countered by relality, not that anyone cares...--Striver 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy who? SkeenaR 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume McVeigh. It's reliable that Moussaoui said what he said...is Moussaoui reliable? Not for me to decide. --Mmx1 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, don't feel like you're alone in your thoughts here. When I first saw this page and the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, I went nuts. What I learned, however, is that Wikipedia has very strange rules, which results in a strange phenom -- that it doesn't matter what the truth is, just whether you've followed the Wiki rules or not, and the Wiki rules are flawed, because they don't favor facts. Strange place Wikipedia is. Never will be a real encyclopedia unless sourcing and fact-checking flaws are fixed. You'll learn that there are several pages on Wikipedia that are guarded by POV guard dogs, like this one, and trying to edit them is like peeing in the wind. If you need help supporting your perspective, drop me a line on my talk page. Also, both Skee and Striver are good guys -- even if they took the blue pill rather than the red one. Have fun, but don't take this place too seriously -- it's just entertainment. Cheers. Morton devonshire 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the kool-aid drinkers and anarchists that the rules attract, and that wikipedia ultimately cannot be a legitimate encyclopedia without some real form of peer review. However I think there is also an upside to the wikipedia rules. In that the fringe allegations and information is documented and can sometimes be interesting. Like finding about some little sensation or the "actual facts" surroundeding a film for example. Of course on pages involving religion and/or politics it just gets ridiculous--like here. I take comfort in the fact that those pov guard dogs are just wasting their time rearranging deck chairs on wikipedia articles, rather than being out in the real world really bothering me. keith 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue pill? C'mon, I was pointing out that official or mainstream sources for the articles on this stuff are poor. And that it's probably wise to not just dismiss everything else out of hand.[197] That's all. How crazy is that? If you don't automatically buy the government story of the week, it's the "that guy believes lizard people rule the world" label for you. It's crap people, crap. These articles are not easy. And this UFO Kool-Aid stuff seems like a cheap diversion. SkeenaR 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Morton's lightness on this matter, but I don't completely agree. This isn't a benign issue like Bigfoot or UFO's, in which misinformation about these items hurts no one. This is article space regarding events of stupendous violence in which thousands of people died...I take the situation here as seriously as anyone might if they were a survivor of a Nazi death camp and someone was posting information that the Holocaust never happened. It's benign to believe in UFO's...all one does is look silly. It's completely the opposite to go around spewing nonsense gathered from worthless websites that propose a government coverup regarding the events of 9/11. While I appreciate questions arguing that the "official" story about the events of 9/11 may be inaccurate, it is completely objectionable to try and put speculation that the government was behind this matter (based on zero proof) in article space in a main article such as this one. It's not like I just showed up at Wikipedia...[198], so any learning about POV watchdogs and POV pushers happened long ago. Thanks anyway, Morton, for the kind words.--MONGO 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"I appreciate Morton's lightness on this matter, but I don't completely agree. This isn't a benign issue like Bigfoot or UFO's, in which misinformation about these items hurts no one."-I share this opinion. Here is another interesting quote-"I blame the media for failing to ask any questions. I blame them for failing to let us know whether the war was well researched, so we could make an educated decision whether or not to support it." SkeenaR 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You have no monopoly on being a victim here, if your government had'nt killed its own citizen, blamed it on their former CIA asset and then blamed it on someone not even related to the attacks, and the American people hadn't been so gullible that they didn't even bothering to check the facts, 100,000 Iraqi's would not be burried today! Think about that! --Striver 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dream on. Wonder what your nightmares are like if reality for you is so far off. By the 100,000 Iraqi's, you must mean about 10% of Iraqi's executed by Saddam...yes, it was truly a Garden of Eden with Saddam in power...every shia must have been sooooo happy then.--MONGO 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Mongo: About 500,000 dies in the iraq-iran war... that lasted 8 years... the current war has been 3 years, so if you're going by rates and you accept the 100,000 figure, the rates comparable... it's only half as bad as the worst parts of Saddam's rule. cnelson
At least we didnt get mass bombed in Karbala every year, and we didnt get our national heritages blown away by American-british forces in Arabian guise. --Striver 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Really...maybe that's because Pakistan hasn't made a habit of invading it's neighbors...hey blame the UN...they supported the no fly zones, the first Gulf War and the embargo in which Saddam used oil for food money to build palaces to his vanity.--MONGO 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what's unfortunate is how the conspiracy nonsense has pre-empted rational discussion. Arguing does nothing - buildings fall down because of physics, not by consensus. Some questioning of the events would be healthy and useful. But hysterical conjectures based on fear and amateur engineering are not helpful, and just create a lot of noise that prevents worthwhile discussion. (Like the worthwhile discussion that's not happening here.) Peter Grey 06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. I wonder if people debate about a topic long enough, even though the premises of the debate are false, if the premises become true. I think, holding skeptism as my philosophy, that the public would come to believe the false premises as true. It would be truth through debate. cnelson

You just started the controlled demolition talk again Peter. SkeenaR 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I bet if the controlled demolition wasn't physically impossible, no-one would talk about it at all.... Peter Grey 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Steel does not bend by having a fireball outside the building, fireproof or no fireproof. Specialy when the jetfuel is consumed after 15 seconds and the collapse comes after 50 minutes. Thats the fysics, there is no arguing to that. --Striver 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is there's no merit in arguing the "fysics". The physics, on the other hand, do say that a building compromised by an impact about 27 times the force it was designed to withstand, and subjected to a very large and prolonged fire, is susceptible to collapse. Peter Grey 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
27 times? Never heard of that, care to share your sources? Prolonged fire? I would not call a 15 second fireball outside the building as "a very large and prolonged fire".--Striver 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Where'd all that smoke come from for an hour plus after this "15 second fireball" you keep bringing up? What were all those firefighters doing around the WTC for a month after the collapse?--MONGO 08:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The back smoke you are refering to is smoke after the burning of stuff like somputers, furniture and stuff, nothing even remotly close to what is necesary to bend solid steel. What you just claimed is that they build a 100 story building that collapesed from an ordinary fire. Further, guees what black smoke indicates? Yes, it indicates that the furniture and stuff where not even burning in theyr optimal temperature. Furniture on a fire that produces black smoke causes the failure of a solid steel column building? Not in my lifetime. Or anyone elses, for that matter. Here, compare this so called fire, with a real fire. Neither of the buildings fell to due the fire, one fell due to explosives.--Striver 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is a quote from a firefighter, for your benefit:

Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.

--Striver 13:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so firefighters are demolitions experts now? Skilled guys we have in the FDNY! Lines are slang for hoses. They're saying they can probably put out the pockets if they bring up two hoses. --Mmx1 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1, I don't think Striver was trying to the firefighters were going to knock down the building. He (striver) was trying to convince you of the weakness of the fires by quoting a witnesses testimony. And as for you, Striver, many things burn and produce 'black' smoke, but are not necessarily signs of oxygen starvation [199] (I go back to the same source because he tries to offer the best perspective of understanding... if he can't debunk something entirely, he'll say it). C. Nelson 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see fire in the image from your website you keep using as a reference, above the person. The other image was taken at night. Black smoke equals chemical or fuel fire, white smoke equals paper or wood fire. Again...you seem to know nothing about how the WTC was built...and no one has claimed that solid steel had to melt in the correct reports. I went to an engine academy Striver and fought forest fires for the NPS for a dozen years. Even forest fires get hot enough to melt an automobile. You know absolutely nothing about fire and that is apparent to me.--MONGO 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Be polite, Mongo. C. Nelson 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First, we are not talking about automobiles, not even solid iron columns, but steel columns. And i didn't say melt, i said "failure", or bended. And no computer and furniture is even going to get remotly close to the temperature to bend steel (but, you'd agree that heat weakens steal, right?). Specialy not the tiny fires on the picture (don't forget perspective, the buildings are 207 feet across... 7/10ths of a football field). Bro, do you realy think they built a 100 floor skyskraper that would collapse due to a 15 second fireball, followed by a 50 minute fire of copmputers and stuff, a fire almost having been self-extinguished after 50 minutes?`
Yes, the picture was taken at night, it does not change the amount of fire, the wtc fire was not even close to the madrid fire, not in magnitude, not in lenght, not in quantity. You seem to be under the impression that any fire will bend solid steel, as long as it burn for 50 minutes and the whitewash commision says so. Ever tried to cook food? Did your pot bend after 50 minutes? Im sure it was not even maid of steel, even less solid steel of gigantic proportions. --Striver 15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Try a full plane load of jet fuel. WTC was not built to handle that much flamable fuel being dumped into the middle of structure. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be obvious to anyone with eyes that a full plane load of jet fuel was not dumped into the middle of the south tower. (yes, a lot of it exploded during the impact) --Hyperbole 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The centre of the fire, obviously, was hotter than the edges (wouldn't the edges have more oxygen? I'm not a fire engineer though). It seems that Striver is asserting that buildings can't fall down except deliberately. That's a statement of faith - and it's not true in the real world. It's like saying the Titanic couldn't sink. Some people did say that; they were wrong. When engineers design a building to withstand an airplane collision, it doesn't mean they replace a few windows and everyone goes back to their desk the next day, it means the building stays standing long enough to be evacuated. 95% of the time. If your intuition is telling you something different, it's because intuition gets it wrong in situations like this. There's a reason that it's illegal for amateurs to engineer buildings. Peter Grey 16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The fire and plane where on the edge of the tower that fell first, so your arguent is voided. Further, i never said any such thing, building can fall from earthquakes and other things, what i did say is that no steel frame building can collapse from a ordinary fire, no matter if there was any 15 fireball outside the building or not, and no mater if there is any fireproofing or not. but there haven't been many steel frame buildings that have had a number of their columns damaged from an airplane impact of this magnitude along with fire

The buildings were designed to withstand a low speed impact from a similar sized aircraft that may have gotten lost in the fog and flying at much less than 200mph...not a high speed impact flying into the building at 490 and 590 mph respectively. No one knows how much damage was done to the towers internal steel...my guess would be that it was signicant...no one was able to use the elevators or the stairwells (all in the middle of the structures) to get down in the North Tower...that should clearly indicate that the internal damage was signicant.--MONGO 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The plane did not hit the center of the tower caused the first collapse. If the hit was of any greater relevance, the tower that was hit straight on would fall first, not the tower that was hit on the side, missing the core columns and dumping most the jet fuel outside the building. Such glaring contradictions clearly debunk the official theory. --Striver 10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Get the international science and engineering community to agree with you then we'll care. keith 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
They do agree that the hit itself did little or nothing. There are plenty (ie, a very small group) of scientists and enigneers that do not agree with funiturefire+15sec fireball equals bent steel, but most of them stfu due to fear of being ridiculed. I went and talked for 20 minutes with my sister math and structural engineerer (or was it? "hållfasthetslära" on swedish) about the allegation that they collapsed due to hit+fire, and after the 20 minutes (lunch), he agreed that he had no idea and that the offcial theory made no sense. There are examples of people that did speek out, and got fired, for example that guy that made sure the columns in the towers where of good quality. He sent a letter and said it was impossible that the columns bent due to fire (he knows, he was the guy that exmained them), and he was fired for not stfu. --Striver 11:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, take a look at this guy: Kevin Ryan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

Oh...yeah...gee...wow...golly. Sign your posts, Striver.--MONGO 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The point

I'm not understanding what relevance this ongoing conversation has to improving this article. Perhaps you would like to take it to the conspiracy page? Wikipedia is not a forum. Please shift this to improving the article, rather than arguing over the physics of the matter. Putting this in to the article is, at present, non-negotiable. Work on the conspiracy article first. --Golbez 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: let's archive what we've got, and any new discussion that doesn't belong can be cut-and-pasted to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Peter Grey 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The point: this article is pov. Polls prove it. Common sense proves it. Kevin Ryan proves it. This article is P O V. MONGO whent "no evidence of being pov". I gave it. Now, NPOV the article. --Striver 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan tests water, not steel. I see you're a .NET programmer. It's the equivalent of you giving some insight into Java programming because you work for a company that does Java. --Mmx1 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is fairly neutral....it's the trolling by conspiracy theorists on this talk page that demand to have unencyclopedic nonsense in main article space...oh, yeah...the U.S. Government blew up the buildings...yeah...the planes weren't hijacked by 19 islamofascist terrorists...the Pentagon was hit by a missle...yeah...the plane that crashed in Pennyslvania was shot down by the government...yeah...that's what really happened, surely. This Kevin Ryan guy probably got fired because he has half a brain and upset over his termination he made up this cock and bull nonsense to try and even the score...but more likely his employers realized he was a fool when he went to them with his "evidence".--MONGO 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive this Page

Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page.

"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability
Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change
Description of conspiracy theories
Conspiracy Video
Culpability
Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones
need these photos
Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.
Conspiracy theorists.
The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale
Explain these anamolies
84%!
Lost conspiracies
Asymetrical POV

Favor Archiving

C. Nelson - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track.

Oppose

Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.

I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx1 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"

Hello. I'm new here at the Wikipedia. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this?

Normal nick 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a Request for Comment from the community. --Golbez 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. Ombudsman 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Controversy"

Controversies sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. patsw 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything.
"Controversy on the diccionary". There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that oposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.Normal nick 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. SkeenaR 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. Morton devonshire 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That argument is funny, because if there had been a Wikipedia at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.Normal nick 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. Peter Grey 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". Normal nick 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Wikipedia up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--MONGO 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
9-11 conspiracies theories fit your description.conspiracy theories debunked

Motivations for the Change

I think it is up to you to show why conspiracy theory is not suitable for a title. Tom Harrison Talk 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple:
  • Wikipedia is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Wikipedia is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Wikipedia quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes wikipedia to be more neutral.
  • By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Wikipedia's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Wikipedia's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for.
  • Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.Normal nick 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that argument before, and I don't find it persuasive. Conspiracy theory is a perfectly correct term. Calling them anything other than what they are is just inaccurate. Tom Harrison Talk 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The matter here is not if it is correct or not, but if it is best than "Controversy". By your non-arguments i see it's not.
It's much more accurate and more neutral than "controversy". "Controversy" implies a legitimacy and an air of serious debate which the 9/11 conspiracy movement does not have. The movement is a tiny group who can't even make up their mind about which theory to support. Ignoring the vast amount of evidence supporting the official account, they allege that members of the U.S. government conspired to murder thousands of U.S. citizens and somehow kept it a secret. There is no better term than "conspiracy theory" to describe these unsupported beliefs. Rhobite 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
They aren't a single group, with a single theory, and many of them don't even say nothing about any conspiracy. The this is: There are people who disagree with the officaly presented facts, and that as to unbiasely be refeerd on this article. "Controversy" don't implies legitimacy, and "legetimacy" is way too subjectif.

Some of the unofficial theories appear to have supporting evidence while others appear to have none. Many claims of the official account seem to be legitimate while others seem unsubsantiated. But one thing is certain, and that is there is much controversy - obviously. SkeenaR 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not controversy debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."

911 conspiracy theories fit your description; therefore, they are accurately labeled. debunking 911 conspiracy theories

If there was nothing to cover up, why was there no crime scene investigation at the WTC site, why was the evidence meticulously removed? Why is there no picture whatsoever showing commercial airline markings on any of the planes that were alleged to have been commercial airliners? Of course its a conspiracy, of course there are theories and this article is nothing but conspiracy theories... but use of that term is a pejorative, freighted with the meaning "nutty speculation". The entire article needs a rewrite to become credible and NPOV, we shouldn't pick and choose as to whose speculations and assertions are more credible, just report facts based on evidence. But anything counter to the official 9/11 commission report is sent of to the Kid's Table. What if we had written an article on the Kennedy assassination, not including anything contrary to the Warren Commission Report???Pedant 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is based on false premises, becasue all of your concernes have been adressed and there is no controversy.debunking 911 conspiracy theories
I believe the entry should be labeled September 11, 2001; Attack Theories
There are definitely more conflicting reports from the "official" theory and, I believe, less sound science. The speed of freefall in air is a law of physics. That an object will fall along the path of least resistance, is a law of physics. The disappearance of angular momentum in the south tower's falling top, defies physics if you subscribe to the official theory and if you disregard the laws of physics. That we can't prove (right now) that Larry Silverstein or Peter Peterson were involved is just as conclusive as saying Osama BinLaden was involved (perhaps even less so, since we have a video of him (the real Osama, not the fake) denying involvement). Just because Popular Mechanics, or Popular Science, or even People magazine say it happened a certain way, isn't conclusive. That the 9/11 COmission omitted the collapse of Building 7 speaks to it's lack of depth. Why are people being so prudish about this? If you don't want to find out the truth, why are you looking at Wikipedia? Waterflaws 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy shouldn't be allowed

I dispute that the numerous Controversy sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. patsw 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page.
Try Wikipedia's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushersNormal nick 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. patsw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Wikipedia's rules. Normal nick 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
"You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
From NPOV:
"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."Normal nick 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the due weight that fairly represents the viewpoint that 9/11 may have been one of serveral different conspiracies described in the linked article. patsw 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Using the expression "conspiracy theorists", you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.Normal nick 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour Archiving This Talk Section

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Opose To Any Of The Last

Opposed just because Nick is in favor of it

Validity of facts

The points of view Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--MONGO 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are based on facts. It's a fact that outside the pentagon there were no airplane debris. And it's a fact that the way the towers have fallen it's weirdly similar to implosion demolitions. About the others, i can't tell if they are facts or no. I didn't see them.

Normal nick 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

nick,... there is no validity to your comment Your claims debunked
No, zero of this nonsense is based on facts...you didn't see them...I did...no aircraft parts at the Pentagon?...examine this image...see those folks in the white hazmat suits near the orange crane...to the right slightly is some of the remains of the aircraft...they are in hazmat outfits due to the biohazard from the people that died on the plane and in the building. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...when some one can prove it, then it can go in this article....got it?--MONGO 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No wings nor any other big parts. This is fact..
  • There is no proff about controled demonition, you are right, but there are proffs it looked like a controled demolition.
You are wrong...they did find a lot of aircraft parts at the Pentagon. You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...the buildings at the WTC were not imploded. There is no evidence that proves implosion.--MONGO 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether a plane realy crashed against the pentagon, neither do you. But there are no big parts of any plane at that photos or movies. This is a fact.
  • I don't know if there was a controled demolition, neither do you. But the fall of the buildings looks like one. And this is a fact.Normal nick 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS. The fall of the buildings at the WTC may look like controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean that it was...do you have proof of controlled demolition?...oh, I see, I didn't think so.--MONGO 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that the fact of "had been a controled demolition" is different from the "it looked like a controled demolition". Strange that you saw it, because there are other witnesses that say they didn't. And... working for the USDHS don't makes you way too biased for having anything to do with the edition of this topic? Editors are suposed to be neutral.Normal nick 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
nick, all of your arguments have been adressed and they are invalid debunking 911 conspiracy theories]

Asserting that you work for the USDHS is as ridiculous as me saying I'm the President's Head Secret Service Agent. Unless you are editing non-anonymously, AS the person who works for USDHS, and as a witness, which you aren't so that point is just plain bs. Since there is ample footage of the impact and events leading up to the impact at the Pentagon, there should be a picture of a commercial airliner just prior to it hitting the Pentagon. There ARE pictures, and if they did show such an image, they would very likely have been released. There being as you say "no evidence that proves implosion" is no more cogent than me saying "it is physically impossible for a building of that type to collapse in that way from jet fuel fires", and there is ample evidence that indicates that controlled demolition by pre-placed charges is more likely than the assertion that a building specifically designed' to withstand a similar impact -- with a greater fuel payload, on a day with MORE wind load, with more static weight load of people in the building -- just collapsed, like no other building in history ever has, and in complete contradiction to the laws of physics", and that the 2 buildings next to it also collapsed the same way, the first 3 steel framed buildings to have all their steel melt at temperatures far lower than the melting point of such steel, all 3 buildings crumbling to dust. Ignoring one scientist in favor of another is a POV violation. Not to mention that one of the towers began to topple to the side and then turned to dust and fell straight down at freefall speeds, in complete violation of conservation of angular momentum. Lastly, if you work for the USDHS, what is your job? Lurking on wikipedia and frustrating attempts by other editors to write a factually based unbiased article? If you know something that would definitely prove that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, you should make it public, not brag about it backstage at Wikipedia.Pedant 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Is "the sky looks green" a fact? The pentagon was unlike Tower 2, there was no "ample footage". You're just making up crap. Any scientist claiming the steel had to have "melted" for the towers to collapse needs to have all their degrees revoked for sheer ignorance. --Mmx1 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
all of pedants arguments have beendebunked by experts.--146.244.137.154 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Article and This One

Then go put that junk in the conspiracy theory page...saying how something looked is a bit POV, no? Gee...sure looks like controlled demolition...is not encyclopedic. I'm not neutral? How do you figure that? If I know the facts and a bunch on nonsense oushing POVer's come here and I do what I can to keep their nonsense out of an encyclopedic article, then I am ensuring a close following of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? Okay...see you around then.--MONGO 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:
  • "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."
With this I'm not saying these pages are some kind of POV fork. What I'm saying that - as in any other article in the Wikipedia - this article should treat all facts and the majority Point Of Views in the same way: With Neutral Terminology.Normal nick 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title from conspiracy theories to controversies makes the title inaccurate. Conspiracy theories is the accurate description of these speculations. This particular collection of conspiracy theories is about 9/11. 9/11 conspiracy theories is entirely correct for an article title, and for the section that points the reader to that article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with you. This change should only be made to this article and not to the "Conspiracy Theories" one. I note you that section can give more information than just point to the conspiracies page. It should at least refer the 9/11_Truth_Movement. Normal nick 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The description of "conspiracy theories" is accurate and broadly used. It is what you need to type into a search engine to find them. The "nutjob" quality of the name is also well-earned. No one takes the conspiracy-theory articles seriously except believers. This article is very different. 69.228.101.155 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The expression "conspiracy theorists"is higly inacurate. With it you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.

I agree with keeping the title "conspiracy theories" primarily for it's relationship with the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. To change the title of this section would mean to change the title and inference of that page. --Zleitzen 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorese

I endorese Normal nick suggestion and arguemnets for renaming the section to "controversy". Many of the points are based on facts, such as the facts mentioned by Kevin Ryan. Such as the fact of firefighters reporting explosives. Such as the fact that the fireball could not have traveled 1100 feets down to the lobby, and even if it did, it could not create the damage there was there. Such as the fact that no steel framed building have collapsed before or after that. Such as the fact that wtc7 was no hit by a any airplain. Such as the fact that the only three steelframed buildings that collpased in history due to supposed fire, collpased on the same day and where owned by the same guy. Such as the fact that no airplain engines where recovered from pengagon. Such as the fact that pentagon has no released the photo of any plane. Such as the fact that NORAD stood down. Such as, aaah who cares, MONGO does not care for facts, he is not even reading this, he will just repeat i have "zero facts"... --Striver 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You got People questioning the official American 9/11 account, and you say there is no controversy? All those people are not conspiracy theorist, many of them just dont buy the 9/11 Commissions account and whant a new and independent investigation. --Striver 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have zero facts.--MONGO 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, read this: [200]. Here is a few quotes to you:

The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews

  • NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
    "the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces" exactly...they were substantially different and didn't involve the impact of high speed wide body jets..a force in the hundreds of millions of foot pounds.
  • The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
    The were designed to withstand a LOW SPEED impact at approximately 120-180mph...not 490 and 590 mpph as the jets were actually doing.
    Source?
  • MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).
    No one in the north tower was able to get down to lower floors...all the elevators and stariwells were in the center...no one knows how much damage was sustained by the impacts in the center of the buildings, but only 2 dozen people above the point of impact in either building survived.
The second tower was hit on a angle, the plane did not even touch the main support columns. --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)
    That is a misquote of the NIST reports and is an obvious incorrect miscue as both buildings were on fire the entire time they were standing and it took 3 months to fully extinguish the flames...did you not watch even one minute of the events on TV?
The towers where on fire for the entire duration, but the fire on a given place of the tower did not last for more than 20 minutes according to the NITS report. So, according to the NITS report, the maximal temperature was reached and past after "a few minutes", and after that, you had on any given space nothing more than furniture fire for 20 minutes. Dispite this, the towers did not collapse on the 25:th minute, hence, on any given place, the maximal heat was reached and past after the 25:th minute. Still, the towers collapsed after an hour, obviously not due to some maximal temperature being reached, in the contrary, the temperature could nothing else than drop after the 25:th minute - this is supported by the black hole of the impact zone, it is compleetly devoided of fire, and it is logicly the most heated zone.
  • Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
    Parts of airplane were ejected more than 6 blocks from the WTC and sections of the extior shething of the building were blown even further. The steel columns were interlocked with the floors...as the mounting couplets were bent at the support points, the fire simply did the rest.
As the NITS report states, the building was higly redundant, and a few sections missing was well within the reach of the redundancy. It is still no explained how max 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes furniture fire can acount for acollapse more that a houre later in a building with 600% redundancy. 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes fire does not even begin to weeken, not say bend, a solid steel column, not that it mattered, since they where 6 times more than needed.
  • NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.
    Again, the steel colums were interlocked with the couplings on the floor sopprots...once the floors gave way, the enire complex was doomed.
Again, not even one single floor is supposed to give away, there was not enough heat to do anything, the fires where out on any given place after 20 minutes, the fires where of funiture type, 600% redundancy, the whole explanation is stupid and insulting to anyone contemplating it. And just for kicks, check out a video of the collpapse, the collpase starts 3-4 floors above the impact Zone and fires, totaly inconsistent with the fire theory.
  • the Final NIST report on the Towers admits: Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
    Still talking about the melting point of steel...I want someone to find one piece of evidence of explosives...it is easy to detect...where is that evidence? There is no evidence of explosives becuase there weren't any explosives.
  • Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
Im not talking about melting metal, im quoting the columns not even reaching 600 degrees, forget about melting or even bending temperatures. Only three columns examined reached puny 250 degrees!

This article is pov, NPOV it!--Striver 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't know why I bothered to even answer any of these stupid points, but I'm not going to bother again...it's a waste of time to point out the obvious.--MONGO 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, dont, keep saying "fire made them fall on freefall speed".... --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I will point out the obvious: What makes this a conspiracy theory and not a controversy is that if the items alleged above were true and provable, there is no explanation for how thousands of people would be able to coordinate a single "lie", i.e. that the collapse of the towers were caused by the aircraft, and how they all benefit from that lie. patsw 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of people did not coordiante that lie, almost all stated that the house fell due to explosives the first days, it was first after the official lie was put on the news that people started to parrot it. --Striver 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"House"? "parrot"? I can understand MONGO's reluctance to engage people point by point. patsw 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, for sure polly is sick of crackers. Official lie?...Striver, you are hopeless.--MONGO 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security?

Mongo, I'm curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit. I assume by USDHS you mean Homeland Security. I noticed that the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 was written by Ben Chertoff, the cousin of Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security. Of course I can't say for sure that there is a connection here, but what I was wondering is if it is a policy of Homeland Security to maintain a presence in spaces such as this one, or if you are operating here in a professional capacity. It would be interesting to hear about this from you if you work for Homeland Security. SkeenaR 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an investigator. I am not paid or endorsed by anyone. The government does not in itself sponsor any contributions to any articles. I have tried to enlist park rangers and related friends of mine to assist in land management articles due to their knowledge base. I was not solicited or am paid to work on anything related to wikipedia and the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with my current occupation. There was ofcourse the political wbspammin being done to a few Wikipedia articles from the U.S. Capital, but these were in articles about politicians. I had nothing to do with that and don't even know many of the details. I don't think I have even read the popular science article, and did not know that the writer was related to a government official.--MONGO 07:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean with "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Do it does it in some sort of indirect way?Normal nick 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess MONGO used the rollback function to eliminate any evidance of him writing "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Is it only me seeing a problem when a employee of the homeland security is using his weight as a admin in order to prevent a article from expresing other views than endorsed by the USA government?--Striver 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Should a glaciologist not edit articles about glaciers...? You make no sense again...if anything, complete nonexperts like yourself should be the ones editing elswhere. No the feds don't pay or endorse anyone to edit...oh...just think, someone who actually knows something about these events may have something to say about what is fact and what is fiction. Does your comments have the slightest thing to do with improving this article? I didn't think so...just more of the same.--MONGO 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont pretend you are more qualified than anyone else to edit on this topic.--Striver 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay...what do I know anyway...I mean, compared to you...--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with some commonsense knows that substituting what use to be called "Controversy" by "Conspiracy Theories" is nothing but neutral. Millitary people don't have nothing to do with releasing information correctly. They just have to do with keeping information safe and distorting it presenting it in propaganda form. The use of that expression puts things in a disthorted Black-and-White fashion, like if all the people that don't agree with the official version are togheter and don't have disagreements between themselves. Insisting in the use of that expression is insisting in having a propagandish (black and white) FALLACY in a Wikipedia page, What should unacceptable for all this community.Normal nick 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Military people"? I presume you're referring to DHS and MONGO? DHS is pretty un-military (peek at my user profile to see where I'm coming from). I don't know if you're an American, so FYI, they've folded a lot of stuff into DHS, including the immigration and customs service, FEMA, and of course, TSA. Besides, what do we care about information except to help us do our job? Our job is to win wars, not to shoehorn information. We're not the ministry of truth. It just so happens that it helps us win wars if the other side doesn't know our plans and technology, just like it helps you make money if your competitors don't know your industry secrets and business plan. Nice use of the double negative, btw. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
When using "military people", I meant MONGO and noone else. Sorry if it wasn't clear. And, no, I'm not American nor have nothing to do with that country (I'm Portuguese, by the way). The only reason I'm so active here is that I don't think it's reasonable to use this space as propaganda media. I consider it an insult to the community who is trying hardly to neutraly inform about all the things in the world . In my point of view, this error is by far the biggest error I've seen in Wikipedia. Not because it is incomplete or inaccurate, but because it intentional and has the main goal of misinforming, and such a thing is not proper in an Enciclopedia. Another thing that is important here, is that this kind of misinformation has been (and is) resposible for a lot of suffering along the human History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal nick (talk • contribs)
What? That's a bunch of crap. Excuse me, but you show up and all you do is post your opinions on these events...if anyone is hurt, it by folks like you insulting the families of all those that needlessly died on 9/11 with unscientific POV nonsense that there was a conspiracy or that the government of the U.S. had anything to do with these events...that is propaganda if I ever saw it. I misinform no one...but with "editors" like tourself pushing nonsense that has no basis in fact, it's a wonder we don't just block you outright rather than allow you to edit here. Your sole purpose appears to be agenda driven and that drive is to attempt to have unproven nonsense in this article...what the heck do you know about it anyway? Were you there? Of course you weren't.--MONGO 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that i wasn't there just makes me more neutral than the ones who have.Normal nick 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You may have missed my point. MONGO is not military. He works for the feds, yes, but he's in the department that stamps passports, responds to hurricanes, and asks ppl to take their shoes off at the airport. If you're not American, you're probably not aware of the distinction. Regarding propaganda, I could say the same about the conspiracy theorists trying to use wiki as a soapbox. It's certainly what keeps me here.--Mmx1 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
USDHS: "(...)of protecting the territory of the United States from terrorist attack and responding to natural disasters. The department was created from 22 existing federal agencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
U.S._Military: "The armed forces (or armed services) of the United States of America consist of the
* United States Army
* National Guard of the United States
* United States Marine Corps
* United States Navy
* United States Air Force
* United States Coast Guard[1]
Now, MONGO probably doesn't care because your comments don't reflect on him, as he doesn't even consider himself military (unless he's Coast Guard), as much as you thought they might. But I'm offended that you would insinuate that I'm here issuing propaganda because I'm in the military. I don't know about your military, but mine are in the business of doing the country's bidding, not the other way around. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we can all read the comments made here on the talk page, examine the edits made to this article and to others, and determine for ourselves who is writing an encyclopedia and who is promoting an agenda. Tom Harrison Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Si, si.--MortonsSockpuppet 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oui, Oui. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hooah, hooah Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What, me worry?--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you can resed assured that your majority formed disregard for basic NPOVing can continue a bit longer--Striver 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article:

"The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline." " The article is clearly biased, but the Rumsfeld quotes and information are interesting.

SkeenaR 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "leftist web sites" bit (what's he going to do? Have Privates troll Democratic Underground?) But it is entirely fair and accurate to go out and put our your own version of the news, because if you don't say anything then the opposition gets to define the story. There were no western media in Fallujah during the assault because it was unsafe for them. Al Jazeera got the chance to put out unchallenged reports of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. DoD made the mistake of not responding because they didn't want to legitimize the reports. Instead, Al Jazeera's coverage defined the coverage of Fallujah, and the DoD (which had gun camera and other footage to contradict Al Jazeera) said nothing. If someone's out there saying you're killing babies by the dozen, are you expected to shut up or dispute it? That's all the press release is saying. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one about this. "examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom"[201] SkeenaR 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that this was brought up, for all this time, I figured it was the conspiracy theorists that were being paid to post nonsense here. Maybe I should ask the feds for money for all the time...the National Park Service and other land management agencies should have started paying me a long time ago, with all the new google links I provide about their protected areas.--MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Parks would be interested, but the other feds might give you the big bucks, especially if you show them some your work. It looks like a growth industry for sure. Have you written anything about motorized use? If so, where can I find it? BTW, if you are interested, here's that Popular Mechanics article.[202]. SkeenaR 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (maybe I'm missing something) this 6492 word debate has been over "conspiracy theory" versus "controversy". By any objective measure, there is no case for claiming a good-faith controversy. There are many legitimate questions that can, and should, be asked, conclusions that should be double-checked, and so on. The conspiracy theorists do not do that - they give us nonsense like "a puff a smoke proves there were demolition charges and therefore a conspiracy", when the photographs clearly show dust falling, not heated gas rising. And if I may add a personal comment, I find it absolutely disgusting that people would attempt to co-opt the deaths of thousands of innocent people merely to provide an outlet for their paranoid delusions. Peter Grey 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it borders on the heinous as well. Imagine a family member of someone who perished in the attacks and they come here and were to find (in what is sometimes recognized an authoritative source, namely Wikipedia), a lot of misinformation that controlled demolition or a government conspiracy is the reason these things happened. As has been mentioned time and again, we already have suitable articles that detail ad nauseum all the quirky little bits of misinformation the conspiracy theorists want. It seems preposterous for anyone to think that anything more about this junk science is going to go in this article...not unless they come up with some facts to support their arguments.--MONGO 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like Barry Zelman, who lost his brother, and Bob Mcalvane, who lost his son, and both participant in the The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, claiming the USA government is responsible? --Striver 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, i forgot, they are tin-foil crackpots. I wonder who is really dissresprectfull here? --Striver 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't call them that...but I feel sorry for them that they might think the government was behind the attacks. It was Moslem extremists...does that hurt your eyes to have to read the TRUTH?--MONGO 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, if i found a shred of evidance supporting that conspiracy theory. --Striver 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence is your personal perogative, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please inform me of one example of such evidence? One unarguable evidence is enough, do you know any such? --Striver 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's funny how may of the so-called "moslem" (sic) terrorists who hijacked the palanes are alive and well and deny any involvement. Also funny that they used to live just around the corner from CIA offfices, also funny that their flight school trainers say they couldn't possibly have flown a commercial jetliner. Also kinda funny that asbestos was in the WTC and that the insurance policy was increased just prior to the attacks. I wonder what the asbestos cleanup cost on a building that size is? And the '01 bear market profits from people and corporations who seem to have had inside information, they must have been told by Al-Quaeda about the attacks, or just been good guessers. funny how the dept of homeland security didn't even exist before 9/11 but here we have someone who works for them openly editing the article, but always with an eye to removing any mention of facts that look a little sketchy in the light of the 9/11 report. Funny how those who hold to the 'official report' are glad to believe a few blurry photos as proof, but that they are unwilling to do the math on the physics involved, and funny how GW Bush tried to keep a straight face for the schoolkids and outright lied about seeing the first attack live on tv, and when he saw it and when he was told about it, they didn't scurry him off to a safe location, if it were actually true the US was under attack by foreign terrorists. Funny also how many terrorist camps are actually former CIA training camps and how many terrorists have CIA connections and how few terrorists there are who haven't a connection to The "big secret at Fort Bragg" where so many death squads were trained for 'our' allies, and funny how we have less freedom now than we ever did, and how Bush and his ilk keep saying they hate our freedoms, but they don't clue you in that the they is the corporations and cronies pulling pinnochio's strings, and that when they say 'our freedoms' they mean, US, the peole they are telling these lies to, and funny how Bush got his millionaire start in the oil business not with dad's money but with money from the Bin Ladens, and how their family was able to fly on a day when the Air Force was grounded, and funny that the Air Force was diverted from the area for the most part when the 'hijacked' planes were still flying and funny that the planes that remained weren't scrambled, and funny how hasty the cleanup of the attack sites was, and funny how little actual information exists, so that we need to write an article based on only speculation and unsupported assertion, even though it might be the most important set of events to have happened within most of our lifetimes, and how funny on top of that that we never even counted the votes for the last 2 presidential elections, and so we are completely at the mercy of whoever the cronies and backdoor men want to place into the office of the president, and even funnier how, when they can completely control the media and the results of the election, that they are still so concerned with this particular little website, if wikipedia is so ridiculous as they make out, why do they have government employees editing it on the clock, and oh yeah, since they control the elections and the news, its terribly funny that they picked such a silly sot to be president, and didn't do much in the media to not make him look like an idiot, and they let him use phrases like 'we need a regime change' unless it's all a joke to them. It's just funny, all of it. Ha. Ha. Ha.Pedant 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA.--MONGO 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 16

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive this Page

Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page.

"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability
Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change
Description of conspiracy theories
Conspiracy Video
Culpability
Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones
need these photos
Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.
Conspiracy theorists.
The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale
Explain these anamolies
84%!
Lost conspiracies
Asymetrical POV

Favor Archiving

C. Nelson - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track.

Oppose

Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.

I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx1 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"

digiterata April 20 2006 Hi, I have replaced the title "Conspiracy Theories" with "Alternate Theories". I hope I haven't stirred the pot unneccessarily. That wasn't my intent. IMHO "Alternate Theories" is a more neutral term than either "Conspiracy Theories" or "Controversy". Let's see how long this edit lasts before someone removes it.

digiterata April 20 2006 Well per my post above, my "Alternate Theories" edit lasted about 4 minutes, before being removed by an administrator. I checked the definition of "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia and found it to have strongly negative connotations. Please see my post under "Controversy" on this Talk page. What does the community think? Is "Conspiracy Theory" a fair term to describe this section or is it biased?

Normal nick 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Hello. I'm new here at the Wikipedia. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this?


This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a Request for Comment from the community. --Golbez 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. Ombudsman 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the editors of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page can't seem to weed out all of the nonsense and create a concise page which doesn't drown the reader in debunked theories. --146.244.137.154 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Controversy"

Could someone please explain how "Conspiracy Theory" is a neutral non-pov term? According to Wikipedia "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." I recently changed the term from 'Conspiracy' to 'Alternate' however 'Controversy' also seems appropriate. Per Wikipedia, "A controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." Please advise how 'Conspiracy' is more neutral than the alternatives listed above. There appears to be no means of arriving at a consensus. What is the next step in situations such as this? digiterata April 20 2006

Controversies sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. patsw 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything.
"Controversy on the diccionary". There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that opposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.Normal nick 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. SkeenaR 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. Morton devonshire 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
That argument is funny, because if there had been a Wikipedia at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.Normal nick 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. Peter Grey 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". Normal nick 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Wikipedia up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--MONGO 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
9-11 conspiracy theories fit your description.conspiracy theories debunked

Motivations for the Change

I think it is up to you to show why conspiracy theory is not suitable for a title. Tom Harrison Talk 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple:
  • Wikipedia is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Wikipedia is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Wikipedia quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes wikipedia to be more neutral.
  • By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Wikipedia's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Wikipedia's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for.
  • Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.Normal nick 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that argument before, and I don't find it persuasive. Conspiracy theory is a perfectly correct term. Calling them anything other than what they are is just inaccurate. Tom Harrison Talk 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The matter here is not if it is correct or not, but if it is best than "Controversy". By your non-arguments i see it's not.
It's much more accurate and more neutral than "controversy". "Controversy" implies a legitimacy and an air of serious debate which the 9/11 conspiracy movement does not have. The movement is a tiny group who can't even make up their mind about which theory to support. Ignoring the vast amount of evidence supporting the official account, they allege that members of the U.S. government conspired to murder thousands of U.S. citizens and somehow kept it a secret. There is no better term than "conspiracy theory" to describe these unsupported beliefs. Rhobite 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
They aren't a single group, with a single theory, and many of them don't even say nothing about any conspiracy. The this is: There are people who disagree with the officaly presented facts, and that as to unbiasely be referred on this article. "Controversy" don't implies legitimacy, and "legetimacy" is way too subjective.

Some of the unofficial theories appear to have supporting evidence while others appear to have none. Many claims of the official account seem to be legitimate while others seem unsubsantiated. But one thing is certain, and that is there is much controversy - obviously. SkeenaR 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not controversy debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."

911 conspiracy theories fit your description; therefore, they are accurately labeled. debunking 911 conspiracy theories

If there was nothing to cover up, why was there no crime scene investigation at the WTC site, why was the evidence meticulously removed? Why is there no picture whatsoever showing commercial airline markings on any of the planes that were alleged to have been commercial airliners? Of course its a conspiracy, of course there are theories and this article is nothing but conspiracy theories... but use of that term is a pejorative, freighted with the meaning "nutty speculation". The entire article needs a rewrite to become credible and NPOV, we shouldn't pick and choose as to whose speculations and assertions are more credible, just report facts based on evidence. But anything counter to the official 9/11 commission report is sent of to the Kid's Table. What if we had written an article on the Kennedy assassination, not including anything contrary to the Warren Commission Report???Pedant 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is based on false premises, becasue all of your concernes have been adressed and there is no controversy.debunking 911 conspiracy theories
I believe the entry should be labeled September 11, 2001; Attack Theories
There are definitely more conflicting reports from the "official" theory and, I believe, less sound science. The speed of freefall in air is a law of physics. That an object will fall along the path of least resistance, is a law of physics. The disappearance of angular momentum in the south tower's falling top, defies physics if you subscribe to the official theory and if you disregard the laws of physics. That we can't prove (right now) that Larry Silverstein or Peter Peterson were involved is just as conclusive as saying Osama BinLaden was involved (perhaps even less so, since we have a video of him (the real Osama, not the fake) denying involvement). Just because Popular Mechanics, or Popular Science, or even People magazine say it happened a certain way, isn't conclusive. That the 9/11 COmission omitted the collapse of Building 7 speaks to it's lack of depth. Why are people being so prudish about this? If you don't want to find out the truth, why are you looking at Wikipedia? Waterflaws 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of wacky conspiracy theories which have been debunked by experts and eyewitness testimony. wikipedia is not the place for us to run around in circles chasing white rabits just to end up in the same place. If there is any truth to the myriad of wacky ideas involved in alternate 911 theories, then I suggest you clean up the 9/11_conspiracy_theories page which is highly convoluted and filled with over a hundred unreliable footnotes. If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to get rid of all of the nonsense. How about we call it,September 11, 2001; Debunked Attack Theories, that would be more representative. --146.244.137.126 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 9/11 Myths" tries to explain the "myths" in wacky ways, way that are highly unlikely compared to the logical "myths". Just because they label something as a "fact" doesnt mean it is. Their "facts" are way too far fetched. e.g. "while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper." That seems too far fetched to me. Now the burning rugs, curtains, furniture and 'paper' caused the building to collapse?? --Spindled 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy shouldn't be allowed

I dispute that the numerous Controversy sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. patsw 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page.
Try Wikipedia's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushersNormal nick 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. patsw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Wikipedia's rules. Normal nick 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
"You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
From NPOV:
"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."Normal nick 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the due weight that fairly represents the viewpoint that 9/11 may have been one of serveral different conspiracies described in the linked article. patsw 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Using the expression "conspiracy theorists", you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.Normal nick 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you organize the 9/11 conspiracy theories page to reflect a distinction between speculators and credible investigations. Currently, its all mixed together, and the over all appearance is that of uninformed, second hand speculation. --146.244.137.154 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

the page 9/11 conspiracy theories is full of folklore wich is similar to an urban legend. Most of the material should be dismissed as allegedly misconceived, paranoid and outlandish. perhaps we whoudl call the page, Urban Legends regarding 911. That might help.--146.244.137.125 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the page 9/11 conspiracy theories is full of folklore which is similar to an urban legend. under what expertise or evidence? Personally I don't really believe some of the things on that page, but I don't agree with calling them "conspiracy theories". That term is used by critics to dismiss relevant claims. Some facts in that article are known to the public, such as the Government hiding information from the general public for unknown reasons. I don't think its fair to dismiss information because they conflict with your point of view. RiseRobotRise 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy is the mother of all endings for the word *IF*. Its not a factual claim and cannot be supported. This article should only have factual claims supported by *Official Investigation* references. Eg; U.N., Congress, Military, other countries investigations. It doesn't belong here because it doesn't do any justice to the families and the deaths. --Scott Grayban 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

Opose To Any Of The Last

Opposed just because Nick is in favor of it

Doesn't understand what this vote is for

Validity of facts

The points of view Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--MONGO 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are based on facts. It's a fact that outside the pentagon there were no airplane debris. And it's a fact that the way the towers have fallen it's weirdly similar to implosion demolitions. About the others, i can't tell if they are facts or no. I didn't see them.

Normal nick 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

nick,... there is no validity to your comment Your claims debunked
No, zero of this nonsense is based on facts...you didn't see them...I did...no aircraft parts at the Pentagon?...examine this image...see those folks in the white hazmat suits near the orange crane...to the right slightly is some of the remains of the aircraft...they are in hazmat outfits due to the biohazard from the people that died on the plane and in the building. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...when some one can prove it, then it can go in this article....got it?--MONGO 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No wings nor any other big parts. This is fact..
  • There is no proff about controled demonition, you are right, but there are proffs it looked like a controled demolition.
You are wrong...they did find a lot of aircraft parts at the Pentagon. You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...the buildings at the WTC were not imploded. There is no evidence that proves implosion.--MONGO 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether a plane realy crashed against the pentagon, neither do you. But there are no big parts of any plane at that photos or movies. This is a fact.
  • I don't know if there was a controled demolition, neither do you. But the fall of the buildings looks like one. And this is a fact.Normal nick 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS. The fall of the buildings at the WTC may look like controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean that it was...do you have proof of controlled demolition?...oh, I see, I didn't think so.--MONGO 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that the fact of "had been a controled demolition" is different from the "it looked like a controled demolition". Strange that you saw it, because there are other witnesses that say they didn't. And... working for the USDHS don't makes you way too biased for having anything to do with the edition of this topic? Editors are suposed to be neutral.Normal nick 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
nick, all of your arguments have been adressed and they are invalid debunking 911 conspiracy theories]

Asserting that you work for the USDHS is as ridiculous as me saying I'm the President's Head Secret Service Agent. Unless you are editing non-anonymously, AS the person who works for USDHS, and as a witness, which you aren't so that point is just plain bs. Since there is ample footage of the impact and events leading up to the impact at the Pentagon, there should be a picture of a commercial airliner just prior to it hitting the Pentagon. There ARE pictures, and if they did show such an image, they would very likely have been released. There being as you say "no evidence that proves implosion" is no more cogent than me saying "it is physically impossible for a building of that type to collapse in that way from jet fuel fires", and there is ample evidence that indicates that controlled demolition by pre-placed charges is more likely than the assertion that a building specifically designed' to withstand a similar impact -- with a greater fuel payload, on a day with MORE wind load, with more static weight load of people in the building -- just collapsed, like no other building in history ever has, and in complete contradiction to the laws of physics", and that the 2 buildings next to it also collapsed the same way, the first 3 steel framed buildings to have all their steel melt at temperatures far lower than the melting point of such steel, all 3 buildings crumbling to dust. Ignoring one scientist in favor of another is a POV violation. Not to mention that one of the towers began to topple to the side and then turned to dust and fell straight down at freefall speeds, in complete violation of conservation of angular momentum. Lastly, if you work for the USDHS, what is your job? Lurking on wikipedia and frustrating attempts by other editors to write a factually based unbiased article? If you know something that would definitely prove that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, you should make it public, not brag about it backstage at Wikipedia.Pedant 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Is "the sky looks green" a fact? The pentagon was unlike Tower 2, there was no "ample footage". You're just making up crap. Any scientist claiming the steel had to have "melted" for the towers to collapse needs to have all their degrees revoked for sheer ignorance. --Mmx1 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
all of pedants arguments have beendebunked by experts.--146.244.137.154 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
A little background of me before I make my statement here on this. 20 years in the USAF, worked on fighter jets to 727, know most of weights and messurements of all the planes I worked on including the AWAC's 727. So now my statement about the Pentagon plane. Its not possible, plain and simple. Even after testing this on computer simluations the vass amounts of parts left would have been visible from any angle and even across beltway. However there is no such thing there. Even after looking at photo's taken right after the attack you couldn't see anything that remotely looked like a plane part. Not even a seat. Look at [203] for some arial photo's and sat images. It just isn't possible with the amount of metal and width of the wings or the tail that nothing survived. Sorry but you can flame me or tell me I'm wrong but I spent way to many years in the Air Force to not know what planes can and can't do. --Scott Grayban 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1, the steel was molten after the buildings fell, and was still molten then after. This is physically impossible with just the amount of energy released from the jet fuel burning. If you ignore that the buildings fell "because of melting steel", and say that it is possible for a building of that type to collapse from just weakened steel, then how do you explain the molten steel? This much temperature doesn't just pop out of the ground. It is just common sense to observe that the buildings did not naturally fall by themselves. Any video of the towers collapsing will show you the debris falling beside the buildings at the same rate as the top of the building. -> at least a provoked demolition, not self-occuring. Believing otherwise is just purely unscientific. As for building 7, this is all I need to be sure about, and I am sure. You just have to open your mind. --Spindled 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"Common sense" has proved to be unhelpful in understanding building collapse. Peter Grey 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Where did the top part above the impact zone of the tower go? I mean that size of concrete block a few floors high subject to no overhead pressure or impact, and padded by the bottom floors shouldn't just get vaporized you know? Common sense... and when common sense is unhelpful in understanding this kind of thing, then what is? All we can do is use our common sense in a rational way. Believing plop from TV news is not common sense. Common sense in this situation is the logical indisputable fact that there is at least one flaw in the official story, and this is the door, thankfully, to the real story. --Spindled 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
We have already had the 'intuition is not structural engineering' discussion. It's not enough to disagree, show some calculations of forces, temperatures, velocities, etc. Peter Grey 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Article and This One

Then go put that junk in the conspiracy theory page...saying how something looked is a bit POV, no? Gee...sure looks like controlled demolition...is not encyclopedic. I'm not neutral? How do you figure that? If I know the facts and a bunch on nonsense oushing POVer's come here and I do what I can to keep their nonsense out of an encyclopedic article, then I am ensuring a close following of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? Okay...see you around then.--MONGO 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:
  • "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."
With this I'm not saying these pages are some kind of POV fork. What I'm saying that - as in any other article in the Wikipedia - this article should treat all facts and the majority Point Of Views in the same way: With Neutral Terminology.Normal nick 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title from conspiracy theories to controversies makes the title inaccurate. Conspiracy theories is the accurate description of these speculations. This particular collection of conspiracy theories is about 9/11. 9/11 conspiracy theories is entirely correct for an article title, and for the section that points the reader to that article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with you. This change should only be made to this article and not to the "Conspiracy Theories" one. I note you that section can give more information than just point to the conspiracies page. It should at least refer the 9/11_Truth_Movement. Normal nick 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The description of "conspiracy theories" is accurate and broadly used. It is what you need to type into a search engine to find them. The "nutjob" quality of the name is also well-earned. No one takes the conspiracy-theory articles seriously except believers. This article is very different. 69.228.101.155 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The expression "conspiracy theorists"is higly inacurate. With it you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.

I agree with keeping the title "conspiracy theories" primarily for it's relationship with the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. To change the title of this section would mean to change the title and inference of that page. --Zleitzen 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just tried to add the following statement, however it is apparently completely being censored:

"However, it has been researched by a growing community of people, that the official version of the attacks can be considered a "theory" as well. It has been revealed that the official story is actually based partially on false inforamtion, omissions of facts and speculations. For further, serious and objective information on this topic see for example: - - an essay by Professor David Ray Griffin about the collapse of the WTC, dealing with the official story - - www.911eyewitness.com - features a very objective video of the collapses filmed from the New Jersey side of the Hudson river"

Please tell me here how to adjust this text so the further information may go into this article. Maybe we should link to the 9-11 Commission Final Report? --anonymous 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi: thanks for your work on this page. I agree that this viewpoint is getting very little exposure on this page. Currently the main page for this discussion is 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is also a small section on this page, namely September_11,_2001_attacks#Conspiracy_theories, in which you can summarized points from the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. For a more complete list of pages on wikipedia about the 9/11 as inside job topic, see list. You may also consider getting a wikipedia userid under which to do your edits. Then you can have a watchlist and see quickly when people respond to your comments. Also, I suggest that you try to compose material that is thoroughly sourced to specific articles in and out of wikipedia, then you'll have stronger arguments to folks who will dispute you. Also, study the wikipedia concept of NPOV and other rules. Kaimiddleton 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorese

I endorese Normal nick suggestion and arguemnets for renaming the section to "controversy". Many of the points are based on facts, such as the facts mentioned by Kevin Ryan. Such as the fact of firefighters reporting explosives. Such as the fact that the fireball could not have traveled 1100 feets down to the lobby, and even if it did, it could not create the damage there was there. Such as the fact that no steel framed building have collapsed before or after that. Such as the fact that wtc7 was no hit by a any airplain. Such as the fact that the only three steelframed buildings that collpased in history due to supposed fire, collpased on the same day and where owned by the same guy. Such as the fact that no airplain engines where recovered from pengagon. Such as the fact that pentagon has no released the photo of any plane. Such as the fact that NORAD stood down. Such as, aaah who cares, MONGO does not care for facts, he is not even reading this, he will just repeat i have "zero facts"... --Striver 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You got People questioning the official American 9/11 account, and you say there is no controversy? All those people are not conspiracy theorist, many of them just dont buy the 9/11 Commissions account and whant a new and independent investigation. --Striver 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have zero facts.--MONGO 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, read this: [204]. Here is a few quotes to you:

The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews

  • NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
    "the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces" exactly...they were substantially different and didn't involve the impact of high speed wide body jets..a force in the hundreds of millions of foot pounds.
  • The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
    The were designed to withstand a LOW SPEED impact at approximately 120-180mph...not 490 and 590 mpph as the jets were actually doing.
    Source?
  • MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).
    No one in the north tower was able to get down to lower floors...all the elevators and stariwells were in the center...no one knows how much damage was sustained by the impacts in the center of the buildings, but only 2 dozen people above the point of impact in either building survived.
The second tower was hit on a angle, the plane did not even touch the main support columns. --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)
    That is a misquote of the NIST reports and is an obvious incorrect miscue as both buildings were on fire the entire time they were standing and it took 3 months to fully extinguish the flames...did you not watch even one minute of the events on TV?
The towers where on fire for the entire duration, but the fire on a given place of the tower did not last for more than 20 minutes according to the NITS report. So, according to the NITS report, the maximal temperature was reached and past after "a few minutes", and after that, you had on any given space nothing more than furniture fire for 20 minutes. Dispite this, the towers did not collapse on the 25:th minute, hence, on any given place, the maximal heat was reached and past after the 25:th minute. Still, the towers collapsed after an hour, obviously not due to some maximal temperature being reached, in the contrary, the temperature could nothing else than drop after the 25:th minute - this is supported by the black hole of the impact zone, it is compleetly devoided of fire, and it is logicly the most heated zone.
  • Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
    Parts of airplane were ejected more than 6 blocks from the WTC and sections of the extior shething of the building were blown even further. The steel columns were interlocked with the floors...as the mounting couplets were bent at the support points, the fire simply did the rest.
As the NITS report states, the building was higly redundant, and a few sections missing was well within the reach of the redundancy. It is still no explained how max 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes furniture fire can acount for acollapse more that a houre later in a building with 600% redundancy. 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes fire does not even begin to weeken, not say bend, a solid steel column, not that it mattered, since they where 6 times more than needed.
  • NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.
    Again, the steel colums were interlocked with the couplings on the floor sopprots...once the floors gave way, the enire complex was doomed.
Again, not even one single floor is supposed to give away, there was not enough heat to do anything, the fires where out on any given place after 20 minutes, the fires where of funiture type, 600% redundancy, the whole explanation is stupid and insulting to anyone contemplating it. And just for kicks, check out a video of the collpapse, the collpase starts 3-4 floors above the impact Zone and fires, totaly inconsistent with the fire theory.
  • the Final NIST report on the Towers admits: Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
    Still talking about the melting point of steel...I want someone to find one piece of evidence of explosives...it is easy to detect...where is that evidence? There is no evidence of explosives becuase there weren't any explosives.
  • Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
Im not talking about melting metal, im quoting the columns not even reaching 600 degrees, forget about melting or even bending temperatures. Only three columns examined reached puny 250 degrees!

This article is pov, NPOV it!--Striver 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't know why I bothered to even answer any of these stupid points, but I'm not going to bother again...it's a waste of time to point out the obvious.--MONGO 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, dont, keep saying "fire made them fall on freefall speed".... --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I will point out the obvious: What makes this a conspiracy theory and not a controversy is that if the items alleged above were true and provable, there is no explanation for how thousands of people would be able to coordinate a single "lie", i.e. that the collapse of the towers were caused by the aircraft, and how they all benefit from that lie. patsw 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of people did not coordiante that lie, almost all stated that the house fell due to explosives the first days, it was first after the official lie was put on the news that people started to parrot it. --Striver 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"House"? "parrot"? I can understand MONGO's reluctance to engage people point by point. patsw 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, for sure polly is sick of crackers. Official lie?...Striver, you are hopeless.--MONGO 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security?

Mongo, I'm curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit. I assume by USDHS you mean Homeland Security. I noticed that the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 was written by Ben Chertoff, the cousin of Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security. Of course I can't say for sure that there is a connection here, but what I was wondering is if it is a policy of Homeland Security to maintain a presence in spaces such as this one, or if you are operating here in a professional capacity. It would be interesting to hear about this from you if you work for Homeland Security. SkeenaR 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an investigator. I am not paid or endorsed by anyone. The government does not in itself sponsor any contributions to any articles. I have tried to enlist park rangers and related friends of mine to assist in land management articles due to their knowledge base. I was not solicited or am paid to work on anything related to wikipedia and the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with my current occupation. There was ofcourse the political wbspammin being done to a few Wikipedia articles from the U.S. Capital, but these were in articles about politicians. I had nothing to do with that and don't even know many of the details. I don't think I have even read the popular science article, and did not know that the writer was related to a government official.--MONGO 07:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean with "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Do it does it in some sort of indirect way?Normal nick 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess MONGO used the rollback function to eliminate any evidance of him writing "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Is it only me seeing a problem when a employee of the homeland security is using his weight as a admin in order to prevent a article from expresing other views than endorsed by the USA government?--Striver 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Should a glaciologist not edit articles about glaciers...? You make no sense again...if anything, complete nonexperts like yourself should be the ones editing elswhere. No the feds don't pay or endorse anyone to edit...oh...just think, someone who actually knows something about these events may have something to say about what is fact and what is fiction. Does your comments have the slightest thing to do with improving this article? I didn't think so...just more of the same.--MONGO 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont pretend you are more qualified than anyone else to edit on this topic.--Striver 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay...what do I know anyway...I mean, compared to you...--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with some commonsense knows that substituting what use to be called "Controversy" by "Conspiracy Theories" is nothing but neutral. Millitary people don't have nothing to do with releasing information correctly. They just have to do with keeping information safe and distorting it presenting it in propaganda form. The use of that expression puts things in a disthorted Black-and-White fashion, like if all the people that don't agree with the official version are togheter and don't have disagreements between themselves. Insisting in the use of that expression is insisting in having a propagandish (black and white) FALLACY in a Wikipedia page, What should unacceptable for all this community.Normal nick 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Military people"? I presume you're referring to DHS and MONGO? DHS is pretty un-military (peek at my user profile to see where I'm coming from). I don't know if you're an American, so FYI, they've folded a lot of stuff into DHS, including the immigration and customs service, FEMA, and of course, TSA. Besides, what do we care about information except to help us do our job? Our job is to win wars, not to shoehorn information. We're not the ministry of truth. It just so happens that it helps us win wars if the other side doesn't know our plans and technology, just like it helps you make money if your competitors don't know your industry secrets and business plan. Nice use of the double negative, btw. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
When using "military people", I meant MONGO and noone else. Sorry if it wasn't clear. And, no, I'm not American nor have nothing to do with that country (I'm Portuguese, by the way). The only reason I'm so active here is that I don't think it's reasonable to use this space as propaganda media. I consider it an insult to the community who is trying hardly to neutraly inform about all the things in the world . In my point of view, this error is by far the biggest error I've seen in Wikipedia. Not because it is incomplete or inaccurate, but because it intentional and has the main goal of misinforming, and such a thing is not proper in an Enciclopedia. Another thing that is important here, is that this kind of misinformation has been (and is) resposible for a lot of suffering along the human History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal nick (talk • contribs)
What? That's a bunch of crap. Excuse me, but you show up and all you do is post your opinions on these events...if anyone is hurt, it by folks like you insulting the families of all those that needlessly died on 9/11 with unscientific POV nonsense that there was a conspiracy or that the government of the U.S. had anything to do with these events...that is propaganda if I ever saw it. I misinform no one...but with "editors" like tourself pushing nonsense that has no basis in fact, it's a wonder we don't just block you outright rather than allow you to edit here. Your sole purpose appears to be agenda driven and that drive is to attempt to have unproven nonsense in this article...what the heck do you know about it anyway? Were you there? Of course you weren't.--MONGO 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that i wasn't there just makes me more neutral than the ones who have.Normal nick 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You may have missed my point. MONGO is not military. He works for the feds, yes, but he's in the department that stamps passports, responds to hurricanes, and asks ppl to take their shoes off at the airport. If you're not American, you're probably not aware of the distinction. Regarding propaganda, I could say the same about the conspiracy theorists trying to use wiki as a soapbox. It's certainly what keeps me here.--Mmx1 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
USDHS: "(...)of protecting the territory of the United States from terrorist attack and responding to natural disasters. The department was created from 22 existing federal agencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
U.S._Military: "The armed forces (or armed services) of the United States of America consist of the
* United States Army
* National Guard of the United States
* United States Marine Corps
* United States Navy
* United States Air Force
* United States Coast Guard[1]
Now, MONGO probably doesn't care because your comments don't reflect on him, as he doesn't even consider himself military (unless he's Coast Guard), as much as you thought they might. But I'm offended that you would insinuate that I'm here issuing propaganda because I'm in the military. I don't know about your military, but mine are in the business of doing the country's bidding, not the other way around. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we can all read the comments made here on the talk page, examine the edits made to this article and to others, and determine for ourselves who is writing an encyclopedia and who is promoting an agenda. Tom Harrison Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Si, si.--MortonsSockpuppet 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oui, Oui. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hooah, hooah Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What, me worry?--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you can resed assured that your majority formed disregard for basic NPOVing can continue a bit longer--Striver 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article:

"The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline." " The article is clearly biased, but the Rumsfeld quotes and information are interesting.

SkeenaR 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "leftist web sites" bit (what's he going to do? Have Privates troll Democratic Underground?) But it is entirely fair and accurate to go out and put our your own version of the news, because if you don't say anything then the opposition gets to define the story. There were no western media in Fallujah during the assault because it was unsafe for them. Al Jazeera got the chance to put out unchallenged reports of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. DoD made the mistake of not responding because they didn't want to legitimize the reports. Instead, Al Jazeera's coverage defined the coverage of Fallujah, and the DoD (which had gun camera and other footage to contradict Al Jazeera) said nothing. If someone's out there saying you're killing babies by the dozen, are you expected to shut up or dispute it? That's all the press release is saying. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one about this. "examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom"[205] SkeenaR 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that this was brought up, for all this time, I figured it was the conspiracy theorists that were being paid to post nonsense here. Maybe I should ask the feds for money for all the time...the National Park Service and other land management agencies should have started paying me a long time ago, with all the new google links I provide about their protected areas.--MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Parks would be interested, but the other feds might give you the big bucks, especially if you show them some your work. It looks like a growth industry for sure. Have you written anything about motorized use? If so, where can I find it? BTW, if you are interested, here's that Popular Mechanics article.[206]. SkeenaR 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (maybe I'm missing something) this 6492 word debate has been over "conspiracy theory" versus "controversy". By any objective measure, there is no case for claiming a good-faith controversy. There are many legitimate questions that can, and should, be asked, conclusions that should be double-checked, and so on. The conspiracy theorists do not do that - they give us nonsense like "a puff a smoke proves there were demolition charges and therefore a conspiracy", when the photographs clearly show dust falling, not heated gas rising. And if I may add a personal comment, I find it absolutely disgusting that people would attempt to co-opt the deaths of thousands of innocent people merely to provide an outlet for their paranoid delusions. Peter Grey 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it borders on the heinous as well. Imagine a family member of someone who perished in the attacks and they come here and were to find (in what is sometimes recognized an authoritative source, namely Wikipedia), a lot of misinformation that controlled demolition or a government conspiracy is the reason these things happened. As has been mentioned time and again, we already have suitable articles that detail ad nauseum all the quirky little bits of misinformation the conspiracy theorists want. It seems preposterous for anyone to think that anything more about this junk science is going to go in this article...not unless they come up with some facts to support their arguments.--MONGO 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like Barry Zelman, who lost his brother, and Bob Mcalvane, who lost his son, and both participant in the The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, claiming the USA government is responsible? --Striver 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, i forgot, they are tin-foil crackpots. I wonder who is really dissresprectfull here? --Striver 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't call them that...but I feel sorry for them that they might think the government was behind the attacks. It was Moslem extremists...does that hurt your eyes to have to read the TRUTH?--MONGO 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, if i found a shred of evidance supporting that conspiracy theory. --Striver 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence is your personal perogative, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please inform me of one example of such evidence? One unarguable evidence is enough, do you know any such? --Striver 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's funny how may of the so-called "moslem" (sic) terrorists who hijacked the palanes are alive and well and deny any involvement. Also funny that they used to live just around the corner from CIA offfices, also funny that their flight school trainers say they couldn't possibly have flown a commercial jetliner. Also kinda funny that asbestos was in the WTC and that the insurance policy was increased just prior to the attacks. I wonder what the asbestos cleanup cost on a building that size is? And the '01 bear market profits from people and corporations who seem to have had inside information, they must have been told by Al-Quaeda about the attacks, or just been good guessers. funny how the dept of homeland security didn't even exist before 9/11 but here we have someone who works for them openly editing the article, but always with an eye to removing any mention of facts that look a little sketchy in the light of the 9/11 report. Funny how those who hold to the 'official report' are glad to believe a few blurry photos as proof, but that they are unwilling to do the math on the physics involved, and funny how GW Bush tried to keep a straight face for the schoolkids and outright lied about seeing the first attack live on tv, and when he saw it and when he was told about it, they didn't scurry him off to a safe location, if it were actually true the US was under attack by foreign terrorists. Funny also how many terrorist camps are actually former CIA training camps and how many terrorists have CIA connections and how few terrorists there are who haven't a connection to The "big secret at Fort Bragg" where so many death squads were trained for 'our' allies, and funny how we have less freedom now than we ever did, and how Bush and his ilk keep saying they hate our freedoms, but they don't clue you in that the they is the corporations and cronies pulling pinnochio's strings, and that when they say 'our freedoms' they mean, US, the peole they are telling these lies to, and funny how Bush got his millionaire start in the oil business not with dad's money but with money from the Bin Ladens, and how their family was able to fly on a day when the Air Force was grounded, and funny that the Air Force was diverted from the area for the most part when the 'hijacked' planes were still flying and funny that the planes that remained weren't scrambled, and funny how hasty the cleanup of the attack sites was, and funny how little actual information exists, so that we need to write an article based on only speculation and unsupported assertion, even though it might be the most important set of events to have happened within most of our lifetimes, and how funny on top of that that we never even counted the votes for the last 2 presidential elections, and so we are completely at the mercy of whoever the cronies and backdoor men want to place into the office of the president, and even funnier how, when they can completely control the media and the results of the election, that they are still so concerned with this particular little website, if wikipedia is so ridiculous as they make out, why do they have government employees editing it on the clock, and oh yeah, since they control the elections and the news, its terribly funny that they picked such a silly sot to be president, and didn't do much in the media to not make him look like an idiot, and they let him use phrases like 'we need a regime change' unless it's all a joke to them. It's just funny, all of it. Ha. Ha. Ha.Pedant 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA.--MONGO 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hello all --

I was called in as part of medcabal -- see here. Everyone please read the "tips" following my signature.

The argument here seems very limited: what to call the section discussing a grab bag of very minority viewpoints that suggest some group or other hid knowledge about the attacks, and that there is some wildly different "truth" being concealed.

I would suggest the following version instead:

Theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

It would be incorrect to describe this section as "controversy", because the conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream. i.e., there is no controversy from the POV of the vast majority.

Does this help us resolve the problem?

Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First off all, thank you for collaboration, but I have to say: Sorry, But No, that doesn't helps anything.On my mediation request I clearly asked for a non-American and non-anti-American mediator. Please respect that in the name of neutrality. From your user page I supose that you live/ are from Manhattan. If I'm right, please bring here a non-American mediator.
Thanks, Normal nick 19:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. A priori excluding Americans in the name of "neutrality" is not helpful. Being American has no bearing on one's views on 9-11 (just look at the nationality of those on the various conspiracy lists being AfD'd). Sdedeo made a good faith attempt to mediate this and your rejection shows that you are not interested in getting consensus, just getting your way by crying for an admin. Moreover, his user page indicates he's also familiar with Cambridge. How do you know he isnt' a foreigner studying/working in the US? --Mmx1 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that this demand for a non-American mediation is anti-American by it's very nature. You're assuming that an American cannot hope to be unbiased in this matter. If that is your assumption, then I can see no good to come from mediation with you.--MONGO 19:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV:
  • "Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them."Normal nick 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience are relevant here. If you want American bias here, we should just cut out the "conspiracy theories" section completely. Instead, we are including this section and link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article, to allow a broader range of viewpoints. This section uses summary style, in accordance to the Manual of Style, and the title of the section is so named, as that's what the subarticle is called and is about. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Mainstream news media worldwide do not embrace the conspiracy theory arguments. This is not a cultural issue, it an issue of facts. I repeat the definitions of these terms for your better understanding. Conspiracy=three or more people conspire to perform an act. Theory=unproven allegation or assumption that has yet to be proven and accepted overall. Controversy=two or more identified sources or pieces of information that have essentially equal weight and are in conflict with one another. Lastly, no one has proven that any government coverup, any controlled demolition or any other evidence has a basis in fact that would refute the findings of tens of thousands of investigators, researchers and the media.--MONGO 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A very basic principle of wikipedia is that we must assume good faith. Nick, you are out of line to guess at where I am coming from and to assume that I am not acting in good faith in trying to help. That said, because medcabal is purely informal, since you reject my offer of assistance, there's not much I can do; I'll put a note as to your demands on the cabal page -- it's possible that someone else won't view them as problematically as I do.

If you cannot act in accordance with wikipedia principles, someone will eventually ask for a formal mediation.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you are acting in good faith. But it's bad that I required for moderation and that moderation itself is biased by the place where you live. And note: This ain't the kind of bias you may have conscience you are acting acording to. I simply didn't find it right that ignored that request of mine. But, if my suposition about the place where you live/'are from' is wrong, I've nothing left to do than accept you as moderator. And then my position will change from the one i just expressed. Normal nick 22:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sdedeo, i would like to thank you for your time and suggestion, and i gladly accept it. I will implement your suggestion. --Striver 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that's not the correct way to proceed, per Kmf164 above. They are not conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense, but in the technical sense. Sdedeo's proposed heading could easly be read as saying conspiracy theory is no more than a theory about a conspiracy, which is incorrect. Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I change my opinion about the mediation, and I'll gladly accept our moderator proposal. I just don't understand this last thing you are talking about Harrison, Why is it incorrect? Isn't that article talking about theories about conspiracies? What information is lost in this transition? Normal nick 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick, just to be clear: your demand for a moderator with a particular viewpoint or racial/national background is completely anathema to the way wikipedia works. You may find a different project elsewhere on the web more amenable to your goals.

You may be unclear somewhat on how things function here, which includes a deep belief that people working together and following very broad guidelines leads to an excellent encyclopedia; if you are willing to drop this request, let me know on my talk page. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey.. Calmdown, I just wanted a moderator that would be culturaly neutral, not a moderator with a particular point of view. Having here an American Moderator is almost so unfare than if it was a muslim. I don't want a particular viewpoint from you, but at least, you should be culturaly neutral, in order to somehow challange Wikipedia's problem i've quoted above from the WP:NPOV article. That's why i made that request some lines above in this conversation. I know that this reaction of mine sounds very unpolite and controversial no matter how politingly i try to write it. But under the light of what I'm talking about it is quite reasonable. Normal nick 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's incredibly offensive to both Americans and muslims. --Mmx1 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What? To say that the place where you are born makes you biased about certain issues?
Why?Normal nick 23:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It is offensive to claim that ALL Muslims and Americans have such strong biases that they can't make reasonable decisions about 911. Especial over something so blatantly obvious as a conspiracy theory which has been debunked by experts.--146.244.137.154 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Then, sorry if i ofended you, even though, I should note that I, as Portuguese, probably have a strong bias when talking about the Carnation Revolution or the Portuguese Colonial War. What i said had no meant to offend anyone. Normal nick 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical - Moved from my talk page

Moved this here as it relates to the content of this article and I don't want to have to repeat myself more than necessary.

If I a car crashes into a bank, is it an "attack on the United States"?

If there were unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel, was it the unidentified people who crashed the car?

If the bank turns to dust after numerous witnesses describe the events as having seemed like the bank was blown up by explosives, and no bank has ever turned to dust because of a car crash before, would you describe that 'turning to dust' as a "collapse" ?

If four cars disappear, and then later four cars crash, would YOU assume it was the same four cars... and if the people who disappeared in the first 4 cars were never seen again would you state as a fact that they died in the 4 crashes, even though there were no bodies found, nor other evidence?

If the unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel were said to have been Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green by people who had no evidence, AND later Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green turned up in other places AND there is no proof that any of them worked for Mr. Fizzle, would it be correct to say that they were the ones who crashed the cars, and were doing so under Mr. Fizzle's orders? Would it not be just as meaningful to say they either worked for Mr. Fizzle or a rival bank? Especially if there was evidence that Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green were impersonated by Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z, and an unknown person, all of whom were suspected of working for the rival bank?

This is regarding your unsigned comment on my user page and your rash characterization of my good edit as vandalism.

Please sign all comments, per wikipedia policy.. Please refrain from calling me a vandal, per wikipedia policy. I will refrain from calling you a misguided fool, per wikipedia policy.

If you have any good evidence that there was any factual error in my evidence, I would be very happy to see it. Are you interested in seeing evidence contrary to your point of view? Or is it perhaps your mission to delete any assertion that it was not a foreign terrorist attack that occured on 9/11/2001 but actually a well-coordinated group of covert operations intended to justify the United States going to war against several uninvolved nations for the purpose of establishing economic and military bases of operation for the economic gain of multinational NGO's?

I welcome further discussion in the former case. Pedant 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors? How about some proof that it was a "controlled demolition"? Not speculation about dust puffs or steel temperatures or trying to pass off water inspectors as steel engineers. No, the academic and scientific consensus is that two planes crashing into the towers brought them down, and unless you present credible evidence to the contrary, putting in your POV against the consenus of both the academic community and the editors of wiki is vandalism. That's where I stand; Don't post here again about the conspiracy theory - go talk abt it on the article's talk page instead; I don't have the patience to debate it personally with every Smith, Jones, and Green that gets it into their head that they know better than civil engineers.

--Mmx1 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with you (Mmx1) that it amounts to vandalism in the general sense of the word, but under WP policy Pedant's edit would be considered a NPOV violation and a Mistake. Esquizombi 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, it's not even POV. The temperatures required to create pools tons of molten steel are not opinions. Definitely aircraft struck the buildings. There has been no evidence that it was the 'hijacked aircraft' that struck the buildings. No forensic work was done on the crime scene. No bodies or parts of plane passengers were found in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon. It is not possible for buildings to fall at free-fall speed unless they are not supported. I'm not trying to push a POV at all, just alternative explanations that are equally provable as what was in the article. Note my edit was "this OR this" certainly something happened, but it is not certain it happened as the article stated it was before my edits. I'm not a vandal. One day that article will include the more likely truth, not just what was rammed down our throats by collusionist media puppets. Imagine how the articles on JFK's assassination would have looked had they been contemporaneous with the assassination. They called people conspiracy nuts who claimed there was more than one assassin in the team, but the official report said that Connally and Kennedy's wounds were from one single undamaged bullet. That assertion no longer has any credibility whatsoever. Whether you believe it or not, it is absolutely impossible, physically, structurally etc, for the towers to have collapsed to dust, at free-fall speeds, and leave a pool of molten steel weeks-months (depending on different reports) later. Why do you think all that rubble was scooped up and carted off, if not to cover up the crime? Also it is inherently POV to state that is was an attack "on the United States", The Pentagon is a US target, the WTC was a commercial target, it would be just as accurate or actually more so to say "two attacks on property of the WTO and one attack on property of the US" and attacks on the respective airlines. Of course it was a conspiracy, and of course the discussion about it is theory, until more facts are known it will remain theory. The whole article is of necessity a conspiracy theory, the term conspiracy theory is essentially meaningless, unless it is used as you use it, as a way to merely disparge one possible explanation of events most of us can have no more than theoretical knowlege of, because the evidence has been, in a literal sense, covered up. But I'm not a vandal, and I made my edit very carefully. I would no more vandalise Wikipedia or its sister projects than I would rape my mother. It is very hurtful of you to call my actions vandalism. If you value wikipedia as much as I do, you would never call a fellow editor a vandal without clear-cut reasons. One day you will look back on this and regret your behavior, but today, you are behaving as a misguided bully. Pedant 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The debate over the proper wording has been discussed ad-nauseum on that article's talk page. To edit the intro to such a prominent and controversial topic without even commenting on the talk page (I won't assume anything about whether or not you read it), does constitute vandalism. It's not just POV of your content, which would be excusable if there was some debate on the talk page. It's not like you're a newb that doesn't know about the talk page and consensus. You have been here long enough to know better. Anon putting in POV is NPOV violation. Established user defying consensus and DAILY discussion on the talk page - vandalism.

As for the "attack on the US" hair-splitting, attacks on prominent institutions is typically considered an attack on the nation, particularly as they were on different types of installations. It clearly wasn't just military or financial concerns they were targeting, so the common thread is bigger than just financial or military. Unless you believe that the attacks weren't coordinated or had one backer? --Mmx1 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I definitely do believe that the attacks were coordinated. I also think that it's inconceivable that the attacks were not also coordinated with the 'training exercises' that put the US Air Force in a position of not being able to respond to the attacks. Another part of the coordination must have been the numerous violations of standing orders and procedures in place for response to just such an emergency as aircraft hijackings. The lack of investigation and the hasty cleanup of the crime scene seems to be obviously of a part of the coordination of the attack. Unless you propose that Al-Quaeda has moles in place at numerous key positions in the Air Force, at NORAD, in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Secret Service, at the NTSB etc, then it seems an untenable position to state unequivocally both that the attacks were by agents of Al-Quaeda, and that they were attacks ON the USA, since the above key positions are WITHIN the United States. If I set my house on fire because the asbestos in it would be too costly to remove, shortly after increasing the insurance coverage, would you say that I was attacked? NO. If in the process of investigating the collapse of my house it was noted that during the fire, the support structure had been intentionally removed, would you ignore that? One day you will look back on this exchange of comments, and realize that you were willingly closing your eyes to what should have been glaringly obvious.

I was not 'putting in POV' as you put it, I was removing it. Where is the credible investigation that shows that the aircraft which were ostensibly hijacked were the aircraft that hit the WTC, and the Pentagon? Where is the documentation of what hit the Pentagon, being as how it is one of the most well-surveilled military installations in the world? Why is there no picture of a commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon. I watched the second plane/tower collision live on television, and I saw no Airline markings. Hundreds of cameras caught the impact, yet not one of them shows the slightest trace of commercial airline markings. It is just assumption that the missing 4 craft were the same as the ones that crashed. Assumption is not neutral point of view and is not encyclopedic. Pedant 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Credible investigation? Oh, I dunno, the ATC records, the forensic evidence, the fact that the hijacked planes dont' exist anymore and the passengers are dead? "Violations of standing orders and procedures"? Like letting the planes land so we could negotiate for hostages? That was the standing procedure. Indeed, three of the Four planes landed exactly as the hijackers intended. Thank you for opening your mouth and removing any doubt. I no longer need to assume AGF nor take your viewpoint seriously. --Mmx1 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite the ATC records. Cite forensic evidence. What is your source for 'the fact' that the planes don't exist? Show some evidence that the passengers are dead, there were no bodies in Pennsylvania, you have any evidence that there were? There was no standing order to let the planes land and negotiate. Violations of standing orders like: assume in such and such a case that the plane is hijacked. In the case of hijack scramble planes. In the case of credible threat shoot down the planes. Those were the standing orders and the ordained procedure. Yes, you do need to assume good faith. I'm a good editor, and as you yourself have noted I'm not some newb. My record speaks for itself. I'm dead serious, and I am actually convinced by all that I have had presented to me that the events are being misportrayed both by our article and by the mainstream corporate media. If necessary I will dig up and cite the standing orders that say scramble planes, shoot the aircraft down... the orders were simply ignored and there is no wiggle room in those orders. And yet nobody was fired or court-martialed for their clear dereliction of duty. I'm not the only one who holds to these views, there are quite a few families who have yet to receive any remains of their allegedly dead loved ones. If you want ,you can continue to throw around phrases like "the fact that the hijacked planes dont' exist anymore and the passengers are dead?" but facts can be substantiated, and if they are not, then we have an obligation not to use the word fact when referring to unsubstantiated claims. Your veiled insults are uncivil, and I request that you return to civility. Pedant 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade. You're telling me Todd Beamer, Barbara Olson, et al just dissapeared? Were murdered and buried in an unmarked plot? Or in hiding somewhere? If you think the standing orders were to shoot down hijacked planes, then you're misinformed or delusional. Please, do dig up the orders if you can. --Mmx1 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is constrained by a set of policies and guidelines that help us in our goal of writing an encyclopedia. These include using reliable sources and no original research. This article needs to stick to these policies and guidelines. It's not up to us to use Wikipedia to prove that the "mainstream media" is misportraying anything. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
A talk page like this is to be used for presenting new material for the article or critiquing the material already in the article. Text like that above -- presenting a argument without verifiable, reliable sources -- belongs in a blog or discussion board. patsw 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

suggested link

I'm shocked at how many people seem to be ignoring all of the true evidence regarding the events of September 11th. It is a dishonor to all of those who died to ramble on about conspiracy theories which have no validity. As such, this link should be added. Conspiracy theories debunked —This unsigned comment was added by 146.244.137.154 (talk • contribs) .

I think we link to that from 9/11 conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories as well as the reaction to them should go there. Tom Harrison Talk 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My God, im shocked to see poeple link to that piece of garbage. Did you know that it states that there was one single airplane intercepted prior to 9/11? In fact, over 60 happened just the year before 9/11! --Striver 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My Allah, even if your claim was true, it wouldn't make the entire piece garbage. I don't have time to investigate all of your wild claims and get into the maze-like psyche of a conspiracy theorist. The point is that there is overwhelming expert consensus regarding the validity of mainstream 911 accounts. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories is highly convoluted and full of debunked theories, therefore, overall, it is not a representation of controversy, but a representation of confused reasoning.--146.244.137.154 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

medcabal redux

Hello all --

Just to recap. I was called in as part of medcabal -- see here. Normal nick previously objected to me serving as mediator because I was unwilling to identify my nationality; after some discussion, however, Nick's now OK with me serving as mediator; see User_talk:Sdedeo.

Let me just repost again, with a clean slate.

The argument here seems very limited: what to call the section discussing a grab bag of very minority viewpoints that suggest some group or other hid knowledge about the attacks, and that there is some wildly different "truth" being concealed.

I would suggest the following version instead:

Theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

It would be incorrect to describe this section as "controversy", because the conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream. i.e., there is no controversy from the POV of the vast majority.

Does this help us resolve the problem? Can people help me better understand what the problem is?

Sdedeo (tips) 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

more importantly, they are not taken seriously by the experts who actually analyzed the events first hand.
I'm happy with that title. It solves the initial problem I talked about. Harrison, up there you said you don't agree with the change, but i couln't understand why you are against. Can you please elaborate on that? Normal nick 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article discuss theories involving the Saudi Royal Family, and those involving Israel. So, the title doesn't quite encompass what the subarticle is about. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
But isn't that a problem related with that article in itself? The matter here is: Why should(n't) we change the title to Sdedeo's proposal? Normal nick 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict - The article title 9/11 conspiracy theories is broad enough to encompass what that article is about. Here, we use summary style to give a brief overview of the topic and link to the subarticle. The title of the section should be consistent with the subarticle. While much of the subarticle discusses "U.S. government conspiracy", the title is nonetheless too narrow and not encompassing. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kmf164 -- a good point. Perhaps the title should be "Theories involving U.S. and allied government conspiracies"? I would be fine with either. Sdedeo (tips) 00:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This would be more acceptable to me. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The other issue relates to the word "pejorative" (also note spelling). I don't quite agree with that. "Conspiracy" is also a legal/technical term - Conspiracy (crime) and Conspiracy (civil). The term is not necessarily pejorative. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Conspiracy" is not the issue, "Conspiracy theory" is the problem, the phrase has a connotation of "nut case weirdo assertions with no credibility", see our article Conspiracy theory, which states that it has a pejorative connotation. What would work is "alternate theories of the events", or some similar wording without the negative connotation. In the absence of proof to the contrary, many of the "alternate theories of the events" deserve serious treatment. There are political reasons for the mainstream media to omit serious discussion of "alternate theories of the events", reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of the theories. The absolute truth is we don't know what happened, so all we have are theories. Some of the theories are just more accepted. The theories all fit the phrase 'conspiracy theory', but certain theories are being treated as fact, and others are treated as nutty assertions. Remember that 'conspiracy theory' came in vogue following the JFK assassination, and was used to represent theories contrary to the Warren Commission report, which claimed that all the wounds from JFK and Connally, AND the bullet hole in the windshield, and the 'shrapnel wound', ALL came from a single bullet, found on a stretcher, in pristine undamaged unbloody condition. We all know now that the truth differed from the mainstream accepted 'facts' but at the time, anything but the 'single bullet theory' was dubbed a 'conspiracy theory', a term I believe was intentionally introduced to the public conscioussness to discredit anyone looking for the real truth. I propose that we all take a step back and really attempt to edit this article with a neutral point of view. Eventually we will know the truth, and I would prefer that if it is found that the 'facts' we are accepting are found to be untrue, that our original article will still stand as a credible scholarly dissertation, and not a joke.Pedant 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction! "Conspiracy theory" has a definite meaning, and I think it important to include the phrase "pejorative" so as to indicate that the majority of people take a "dim" view of these notions. Pedant, please note that the article does not endorse either view, only that it describes (I believe accurately) how these theories are viewed by others.

So let me just check -- are people OK with the current version? We may have resolved this issue and can move on to more fruitful things. Kmf164 (and others) if you want do cut and paste my suggestion above and make any minor edits you think necessary.

Sdedeo (tips) 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not support that proposal. These are not conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense, but in the technical sense. The heading you propose could easly be read as saying that a conspiracy theory is no more than a theory about a conspiracy, which is incorrect. A conspiracy theory is a particualr type of narrative with recognizable features. Tom Harrison Talk 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I understand your point. This brief section is like a pyramid. The heading describes what is going to be discussed: theories about US/allied conspiracies. The paragraph then explains that these theories are regarded by the majority as conspiracy theories with the features you discuss. Does the structure of the article make more sense now? Since both you and Kmf don't like the word "pejorative" for reasons I now see, I'm fine with removing it. Sdedeo (tips) 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, here is the now current version following input from Kmf, nick, Tom. Any other suggestions for alterations?

Theories involving U.S. and allied government conspiracies
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have also speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

Sdedeo (tips) 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is a step in the right direction. How about this:

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity
{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

Tom Harrison Talk 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Kmf:
"WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience are relevant here. If you want American bias here, we should just cut out the "conspiracy theories" section completely. Instead, we are including this section and link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article, to allow a broader range of viewpoints. This section uses summary style."
  • I feel that a link to some "controversial page" should be included. Normal nick 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, that looks good to me. I made a minor edit to the title to take into account Kmf's note that some of the theories suggest the Saudis, Israelis, etc., but I am happy with this. Let's wait for Kmf and Nick to weigh in, but we may have a winner. Sdedeo (tips) 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) harrison|Talk]] 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo and others: please limit your comments in this section to this particular paragraph and small scale debates about the phrasing. Mongo, in the interests of keeping everything running without confusion, I have moved your comment to a second section. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The next time you move my comment like that will be the last time you do it. I didn't solicit your assistance in this matter and I absolutely do not agree with appeasing those that wish to believe the impossible by altering the current wording or title of this section. We do not give undue weight to nonsense. Wikipedia is doomed if we do so.--MONGO 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, what MONGO mentions is relevant to this section, particularly the renaming of the section. Lets not get so tied up in language that we forget the facts.--Mmx1 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, please remember to be civil and not to threaten other contributors. I'm trying to keep the debate focused so we can move on to other things. From your remark here I get the sense that you are not OK with the current title. To me it seems fine: it does not give undue weight to anything, but rather explains how "Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity" is viewed. I understand that you view these theories with great distain and anger, but our job here is to be very neutral and dispassionate about what people think.

Nick, I am not sure what you mean in your comment: the current title of the main page is "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"; I don't want to get into a debate on that -- if you want to suggest a page move, you will have to have a discussion with the people who have worked on that page. We're trying to stay focused on this little paragraph. Sdedeo (tips) 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was uncivil for you to move my comment elsewhere. My comment was not a threat for I view you moving my comment as incivil and as rude, so you won't be doing it again. You are correct...I do not agree with any changes from the current edition...do not tell me that I am not being neutral when I insist that unproven unscientific nonsense and innuendo not be in this article. It doesn't matter what people think...all that matters is we state the facts...which would be: "lots of folks believe the government was behind the attacks...but they have zero proof to back up this belief...this can be compared to UFO's and the Loch Ness monster...some people just want to believe in the impossible, some hate the U.S., some are simply ignorant of the truth, and some are just POV pushing trolls." When we reword the passage that way, I'll be most happy. Therefore, even in it's current version, I feel I already have compromised.--MONGO 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand, and it's one of the things I was afraid of; that this is another attempt to get rid of conspiracy theory in article titles, now using this page as the venue. I tried to approach this in good faith and offer a compromise, and now I see that it can be used as a lever to try to move 9/11 conspiracy theories to, what? 9/11 theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy? Is that where we are headed? At this point I'm not willing to support any section renaming. I'll check back in the morning. Tom Harrison Talk 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Upon further thought (irregardless of MONGO's comments), I'm thinking that the title for the section, while accurately summarizing the subarticle, is perhaps a bit wordy. I think this may better fit in the first sentence in the paragraph, and the title of the section should just reflect what the subarticle is named. How about the following:
9/11 conspiracy theories
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
Since the attacks, a small number of people have raised doubts and theories about U.S. and allied government complicity in the events. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.
-Aude (talk | contribs) 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I apologize if you felt I was behaving uncivilly -- that was not my intent. Wikipedia contains a great deal of information on things that are "unproven unscientific nonsense and innuendo" -- that is one of the reasons it is valuable. It attempts to portray these views in an NPOV and dispassionate fashion. Do you feel the current paragraph endorses either side? Can you tell us which particular sentence does so? I'm going to say right now that the final paragraph will look different from the current paragraph; that is just the nature of a WP dispute.

Kmf, you know that others will object to the heading "9/11 conspiracy theories", which was the origin of my coming here. Can we instead use the more general title 'Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity"? Both you and Tom have previously endorsed this version, and for reasons I've explained above (the "pyramid") I think it is better.

Sdedeo (tips) 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. For the record, I am opposed to any change of the section title but open to a rewording of the content. --Mmx1 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Tom, Kmf and I have previously come up with an alternative title that others who you previously disputed with are OK with. If you now want to go back to the original title, we will be back where we started. Kmf, Mmx and Mongo, I suggest you talk together and come up with something you would be happy with. Post the version here, edit it amongst yourselves. Meanwhile, I will check back in tomorrow (afternoon CST) and see if we can build a compromise from there. Sdedeo (tips) 02:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was more supportive of a section title that included both the terms "theories" and "conspiracies". Also, take a look at the article's TOC, where all the section titles are fairly short and concise. Such a long title doesn't quite fit, while the phrase fits well in the first sentence. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kmf, I see what you are saying but nearly always in these disputes a compact and elegant prose style must take a backseat to acheiving a successful and worthwhile compromise. (This is probably why the phrase "encyclopedic prose" does not inspire joy in the common reader.)

Also: in the interests of my sanity. Just to reiterate: we are only discussing this particular paragraph. We are not discussing the title of the main article 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please make your decisions in this mediation based on what you feel would be compromise without violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks, and good luck -- Sdedeo (tips) 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The language of US/allied shouldn't be in the title as that's only a part (a large part, but not all) of the conspiracy theories presented. Financial cabals are a pretty popular blame group, too. --Mmx1 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are financial groups named in the main 9/11 conspiracy article? Can you come up with a new title that is both descriptive, not unnecessarily broad, and is not "9/11 conspiracy theories"? I've made a new section for people to put proposals in. OK, I really am going out now (to my local pub!) Sdedeo (tips) 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a big deal made of Larry Silverstein's insurance of WTC7 and of some transactions made the day before. There's also talk about reinserting mention of some alleged discrepancy with the gold ingots stored under the WTC. --Mmx1 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

April 5+ medcabal proposals

No renaming or alterations to Conspiracy theories section

The subheading is going to remain titled as Conspiracy Theories because that is what they are...until any proof...any at all is provided that there was a government coverup, that there was controlled demolition, that there was any deliberate attempt by the government or covert operatives within the government to do these things. No one has provided any proof of anything..just their unscientific opinion and a bunch of hot air. The facts are thus: Islamic terrorists hijacked four wide body jets on the morning of 9/11/2001. On hit the north tower of the WTC, another hit the south tower, a third hit the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in a field in Pennyslvania after passengers tried to retake control of the plane. The WTC towers collapsed due to the impact of wide body jets flying into them at high speed and the resultant fires. Building 7 of the WTC was damaged on it's southwest corner with between 10 and 14 floors seriously compromised and fires that raged in the building for 7 hours, resulting in it's collapse. The pentagon had fire and structural damage to all five rings of it's side and a portion collapsed subsequently. Aircraft parts were found at each site. The FBI and other federal agencies have proof that Atta called from a phone oin his flight to another hijacker on a different plane just before he took the plane. The are over 30 recorded cell phone and airphone calls that were from passengers on the planes, all stating that they had been hijacked. Conspiracy=three or more persons plan to do something. Theory=unproven information...therefore not a fact. Controversy=two or more facts or an overlap of scientifically sound evidence which conflicts with each other. There is no controversy aside from what folks used to seeing bloggish nonsense all over the web wish to also see in this article. As Jimbo Wales has stated...we make the internet not suck...as far as these ludicrus websites that pollute the web with their nonsense about a government coverup, they all suck... our job is make sure this article doesn't suck like the rest of the web...so no, the subheading conspiracy theories stays. Take your nonsense to the articles that address nonsense appropriately in the linked conspiracy theory pages. I am not open to mediation on this matter.--MONGO 02:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I just want to encourage you to continue working with the medcabal we have going here, just as Kmf, Mmx, Tom and Nick have agreed to do. Really the only other option is a formal dispute, and you may want to read User_talk:Sdedeo#I_owe_you_five_bucks on that question. Sdedeo (tips) 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Not interested...I'll bang my own drum on this one I guess. I see no reason to compromise the section just to appease those that want the article to more closely resemble some nonsensical blog or unscentific website that is controlled by a webmaster. Nothing the conspiracists have to sell is worth buying...it's not my fault they have been misled by junk science, but it is my fault if they were misinformed from this website, which is what would happen if I agreed to alter the title and wording of this section in dispute.--MONGO 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo -- just to be clear: are you refusing to work with me and others in this mediation? If so, I will have to withdraw. I will strongly suggest that you try mediation to see if it works, and not to view the essential wikipedia process of discussion and evolution as "appeasement." Please give me a firm yes or no. Sdedeo (tips) 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'm going to say right now that the final paragraph will look different from the current paragraph; that is just the nature of a WP dispute." I find this disturbing. Improvement is fine; evolution is fine. Compromise with anyone who drops in and demands it, regardless of the merits, is not. Tom Harrison Talk 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect to the process of mediation, the presence of one or several dissenters, no matter how loud, does not automatically nullify the status quo and require us to move to a compromise position. The goal of wiki should not be mollifying everyone, but accuracy. So far I've not seen any evidence presented that nullifies the status quo position that alternate theories qualify as conspiracy theories, only the POV of one editor (as seen above under Hypothesis - moved from my talk page) that is factually wrong. In that light, I have no problem rejecting his demands outright and reject any attempt to accomodate him. I will not take a hardline stance against any rewording of the article, but I agree with MONGO in spirit. Any rewording that places the alternate theories on anything near equal status will be rejected by myself.
Hah, looks like Tom beat me to it.--Mmx1 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Tom, just to be clear and repeat myself: I am not suggesting that we "appease" anybody in a way that violates the principles of wikipedia. However, I am stating facts when I say that when you are in a dispute with someone over an article, it is in the nature of things that the end result will be an article that differs -- hopefully in an improved fashion -- from the one you began with.
In the case of a few editors wielding misinformation, the "do nothing" option should never be overlooked. --Mmx1 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, still waiting to hear from you. Sdedeo (tips) 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We are losing focus here. You are all making good points, and the "do nothing" option is on the table. Mongo, please tell me if you wish to continue participating in good faith in the mediation. I clicked your user page, and discovered that not only are you an administrator, but you also are member of the "Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club". Right now, I am assuming that everyone except possibly Mongo is "on board" with the mediation, and I am making a new section for you to put a suggested paragraph in. We can then wait. Sdedeo (tips) 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recognize I take a hard stance and in fact, I prefer no link even to the conspiracy theory stuff...but I do recognize that this would be wrong as there are those that simply do believe in a government coverup, etc. I work in the concensus...so I vote for no changes, or for KMF164's suggestion below.--MONGO 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mongo, great. I interpret your paragraph here to mean that you do wish to continue mediation in good faith. If this is not the case, tell us. We can all go ahead, and I can go here for the evening. (Man, that page needs work.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


April 5+ try number 2

I (Sdedeo (tips) 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)) am going to be proactive. Here are two versions we already have; please feel free to add new ones. I really, really am going to the bar now. OK:

number one: proposed jointly by Kmf, Tom, Nick and I:

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity
{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

number two: proposed by Kmf:

9/11 conspiracy theories
{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
Since the attacks, a small number of people have raised doubts and theories about U.S. and allied government complicity in the events. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.
  • I Conssider a link to 9/11 conspiracies theories or Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 a necessary thing.Normal nick 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(Don't worry: the "{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}" is the thing that provides that link.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the word 'small' in the phrase a small number of people(thousands to hundreds of thousands is not a small number, and is not either an accurate number as we have no figures as to how many beleieve which of ANY of these theories, including the mainstream theories), as well as the word 'vast' in the phrase The vast majority view these suggestions(for the same reasons as statesd above re: 'small'. I also object to the much-overused and negatively connotive phrase 'conspiracy theory' as discussed ad nauseum previously (conspiracy theory is also an accurate description of the mainstream theory, etc.). I would suggest Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations. In fact, I would write that paragraph as :

number three: proposed by Pedant:

Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events of September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.
I think that paragraph, while not treating the alternate theories as crazed ruminations of tinfoil hat wearers, also makes it clear that these views are not widely held. I think even those who adamantly maintain that the mainstream accepted theory is pure fiction would accept that wording and that it is a good compromise solution that those who staunchly support the mainstream theory can not in good faith object to... comment?Pedant 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this version is going to be accepted. It makes no reference to the key idea that these explainations are considered conspiracy theories in a technical sense. It also goes into great detail about one particular theory, while leaving out a wide number of others. As mentioned above, people think the Saudis were involved, the Israelis, the banks... the list is endless. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

number four: proposed jointly by Kmf, Tom, Nick and Sdedeo, and then reelaborated by nick:

Speculation About Conspiracies
{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
Since the attacks, some people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. This speculations provided a base for several conspiracy theories.

As I said above, this paragraph is unlikely to be accepted by others because it does not reference the crucial idea that these are considered conspiracy theories in the technical sense. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just changed my proposal according to your claim. Normal nick 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm open to any title that doesn't include the sequence of words "Conspiracy Theories". Normal nick 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be the sticking point, it seems mainly between you and Mongo. Given the passions arising here, I am going to say that we will go with U-1 consensus: i.e., as a mediator I will support (and consider discussion finished) when a suggestion produces something that "U-1" (unnanimity minus one) supports as long as I personally feel that the suggestion is not a bad one (and I am largely flexible.) Both you and Mongo will need to discuss further with other folks here what you think the most NPOV route to go is. Good luck, Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

At best, if we all work really hard, we can work out a compromise that doesn't make the page any worse. Then what? Next week, anyone else can show up and again demand compromise. Further, I have concerns that changing this section title will later be used as precedent for removing conspiracy theory from article titles. Having thought about it, I support maintaining the language now in the article. Any compromise wording needs to title the section conspiracy theories, needs to include a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories as the main article, and needs to minimize description of the theories. Tom Harrison Talk 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. I am amazed that the opposition to the current wording seem to find it so perjoritive. I've explained in English what the three words mean and calling the psuedoscience version of what happened on 9/11 Conspiracy theories is absolutely correct English. The belief that there I see no reason to compromise much either in the titling or the wording of the passage and feel that it's current form is correct in accordance with the facts of the case. Next thing you know, others may entertain the hope of adding passages that indicate that the planes that hit the buildings werre not the same planes that did so becuase they were switched out for "unmarked" planes...at that point we'll have to change the title of the passage to read as Wide-eyed fairy tales--MONGO 13:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't (never) agreed with #4. "some people" - it's a "small minority", or "a small number of people". And, "This speculations provided a base for several conspiracy theories" doesn't quantify the fact that the "vast" or "large" majority discount these theories. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Some people", is a Significant Minority: WP:NPOV
  • "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"
Nor do I agree with the section title. It's correct to describe these as theories — a term that's missing in the section title. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As i said, I'm open to retitling as long as it doesn't includes the wording "conspiracy theories". I find "Theories about conspiracies" adequate. Normal nick 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I, together with User:Normal nick object to the use of the word "conspiracy theory" in the section.

Evidence that support explosives used in the building: The freefall of the buildings - gravity can not at the same time bring down a tower at free fall speed, and at the same time pulverize most of it - it is just physicaly impossible, just as your head dropping through your body at free fall speed and pulverizing it at the same time is impossibel.

Evidence of we holding this view not being a insignificant minority: many of the people of the People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account

Other useres that would probobly object on the same grounds include: User:bov, User:Pedant, User talk:Ombudsman, User:Siva1979, User:SkeenaR and User:Hyperbole --Striver 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Live long and prosper!
Live long and prosper!
and don't forget User:Kaimiddleton, User:Zen-master, User:EyesAllMine, User:Adam Adler, User:ILovePlankton, and User:Blackcats (unless of course, that he is also User:SkeenaR in my twisted sockpuppet theory world). Oh, BTW, thanks for contributing to my inhalers list Stive-man, it's now complete!  : ) Morton devonshire 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget this guy!!! User_talk:198.207.168.65 --SkeenaR 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The conspiracy theory "support" is vastly overstated. There are many people asking questions like whether there were poor decisions made or even negligence by various people before or after the attacks, or whether the fact of the incident has been used for political purposes. (These questions are only indirectly related to this article.) It's not a genuine good-faith controversy when people accuse the US government of premeditated murder based solely on a completely wrong understanding of building collapse. Peter Grey 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. As just said, there are at least two different things regarding the opposition to the official account:
  • Opposition to singular facts that don't directly mention any conspiracy.
  • Conspiracy Theories based on the previously mentioned oposition.
As I already stated once, not distinghishing between these ones is commiting a (black and white)fallacy.
This is the reason why I oppose to the current use of the wording "conspiracy theories".

April 6+ and pause for a week

I get that people are irritated by the whole discussion here.

I began with a very simple suggestion, number one, that satisfied most people -- I think everyone but Mongo, which is fine for U-1.

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity
{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

I'll ask again. Who objects to this? I've added a link. Re: a previous comment that people think groups other than governments (banks) were involved, this doesn't seem to be a main theme in the theories, so I think this title is OK.

As for the question of "small number" versus something else, I think it's pretty clear that we would need explicit sources for anything explicitly claiming a number greater than the number of "researchers" listed in the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I voiced my objections regarding the title. "speculation about...complicity" still gives undue weight to the allegations of complicity; moreover, the conspiracy theories do not all make the jump from questioning the link to assigning culpability; the majority are focusing on perceived technical problems of the account. "Conspiracy theory" is still a more accurate header --Mmx1 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated: "there are at least two different things regarding the opposition to the official account:
  • Opposition to singular facts that don't directly mention any conspiracy.
  • Conspiracy Theories based on the previously mentioned oposition.
As I already stated once, not distinghishing between these ones is commiting a (black and white)fallacy.
This is the reason why I oppose to the current use of the wording "conspiracy theories". Please try to do the littlest modification to the currently proposed article so it fits your point of viewNormal nick 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of editing the article changing the current version to the one currently proposed by Sdedeo, currently omiting the quantification of the minority. The word "small" deserves a discussion: I'll try to get the necessary info about the minority, in order to evaluate if it is small or significant. Normal nick 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. We are at an impasse now. I've never really encountered this before when I've mediated. Who knew 9/11 would be so controversial. (Joke.)
What I am going to do here now is wait a week. In the meantime, we will all let the current "conspiracy section" header stand. This includes anyone who has participating in the mediation.
I will come back on April 12 to see if the same group of people still care about this issue to the extent they do. I know some people feel like they are holding back the floodgates of crackpots, which is silly, and I know others feel like they are being insulted or something similar. I encourage everyone to soften up.
There is really nothing I can do. If you want to drop me as a moderator, let me know. You can reapply to the medcabal. I'm sorry, I just don't know what else to do but wait. Mmx, if you want to change your position, let me know, because we can then still proceed. Otherwise, we'll just wait.
Sdedeo (tips) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sdedeo, for your work. I do want to say that I also object to this wording, as I meant to make clear here. Tom Harrison Talk 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have concerns about the suggested title too. These are theories about conspiracies that are talked about in the subarticle. I'm fine, however, with incorporating some of the suggested wording into the paragraph (as I suggested above). Thank you for your time, weighing in on this. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Sectioning

I agree with that last arguments of yours. And they conflict with mine regarding that the versions you propose contain a black-and-white fallacy. I have one sugestion that may solve this problem:
  • Recalling this section "Controversy" BUT:
  • Adding the two subsections: "People oposing to the official Account" and "Conspiracy Theories".
I hope this is prone to a consensus. If you don't agree, please explain why so we can reach somewhere. Normal nick 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone commenting on this? I guess this can be seen as the "cataloging" info Sdedo has mentioned.Normal nick 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with two subsections, just for the reason that this article is quite long as it is. There's no good way to really summarize the People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account article as it's just a list. But, where the paragraph says "...questioning the mainstream account...", that could be wikilinked to the "People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account" if it's kept or the "Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't work because this article is about a particular historical event, not specifically about the "official account" of that event, which has its own article. Peter Grey 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Zero

The version as of 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC):
Conspiracy theories
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
Since the attacks, various conspiracy theories have emerged. These include speculation that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down.

  • This is the version I support. Peter Grey 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I support this version as well.--MONGO 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen nothing proposed that's not worse than this. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Object to the archiving of 'carefully selected portions' of this discussion

I object to MONGO's archiving of selected portions of this discussion, it seems to me that he is trying to cover up the discussion of the appriateness/inappropriateness of someone who claims to work for the Department of Homeland Security editing an article about the event that sparked the forming of that department. To me it seems that a lot of the editing of this article and the careful excision of only selected portions of this discussion is motivated by very specific goals, not the goal of producing as clean fact-based article, but a goal of discrediting anyone who doesn't agree with the 9/11 commission report's findings. When archiving discussion, is it not appropriate to archive the entire discussion and not just portions? Pedant 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We can all look up the history, there was nothing 'selective'. Peter Grey 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As it was done to me before in this discussion, i sugest you to assume good faith. Normal nick 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing inappropriate in the archiving. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I saw it as nothing but a long rant that was supported by nothing but opinions and came close to simply deleting most of it, and instead I have been the one to try and do most of the effort to keep this page a manageable size by archiving. Whenever someone comes to this page with some kind of pronouncement that the planes that hit the buildings were not the planes known to have done so, but instead were other planes that were switched out, I know we are dealing with a very far out version of what didn't happen.--MONGO 13:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This page was archived just a few days ago. The conspiracy theorists will be upset when they see that things like THIS were immediately archived. I'm sure any self respecting conspiracy theorist would be. Also this:

  • "The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline."

[207]

and this:

"examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom"[208]

Some will say that this is Orwellian style censorship. SkeenaR 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? I really want to know, as it is a personal attack if you are and I will deal with it appropriately. The page was long, I have been doing the archiving...that part of the discussion was 50 kb in the past...are you suggesting that I am some kind of government paid operative sent here to spam this article? If that is the case, then prepare your case and prepare to defend such an allegation. The belief that I am paid to post information here is definitely a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...yeah. Read carefully, there are no accusations or personal attacks here. Sorry if you misunderstood, I'll try to be more clearer later. But please, no legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. SkeenaR 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games with me...I meant prepare your defense for arbitration. You and Pendant better read carefully...innuendo or accusations that I am a paid webspammer with zero proof is a personal attack. You can say whatever else you want, but I do not have to tolerate misrepresentations of this nature.--MONGO 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone please don't argue about this -- just let it go. I promise promise that the archiving is just fine. I also want to note that accusing other editors of bad faith is really not OK. Sdedeo (tips) 14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored my old archiving back to this page...now the page is 127kb long. I also recently created an archive at Collapse of the World Trade Center as that talk page was 271 kb long...archiving is normal to keep active discussion pages from becoming too big, for those that misunderstand why I archived.--MONGO 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pics

something less controversial. Are there any pics of the first plane hitting? I can't find any on Wikipedia, so it may be that if they do exist, someone needs to upload them. --Midnighttonight 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A screen cap from one of the two videos known to have captured the event may be allowed for demostration purposes, if such a screen cap can be found.--MONGO 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

two suggestions

Hi all, Sdedeo peeking in. Two thoughts:

  1. the short para should represent the article of 9/11 conspiracy theories as accurately as possible.
  2. I believe the long-term solution will be to have the 9/11CT stuff mirror the way in which we handle the JFK assasination theories as closely as possible. Not saying we should aim for that in this particular dispute, but we should be describing, cataloging, handling and discussing these fringe theories in the same way we do the JFK material.

OK, will step back out again -- just two suggestions to help. I'll come back on the 12th and we can start again proper.

Sdedeo (tips) 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy theory

I've noticed that many conspiracy theorists (not all) seem to be obsessed with biases, but fail to see their own. They seem to think that any information which comes from inside the government comes from people with ulterior motives and cannot be trusted. Ironically, it is those within the government who would best understand how the government actually works. How strange that there isn't a huge movement by leading democrats to try and uncover the right wing conspiracy of 911. I mean, everyone knows about bill Clinton getting a blow job? It’s not like there isn't party warfare. Are the republicans just that much better at uncovering and covering lies? Or could it be that there isn't a big secret waiting to be revealed by the glorified anarchist "V". Maybe, instead of focusing on the motives of government officials, these conspiracy theorists should take a look at the biases of the 911 conspiracy theory websites whose authors are making money by selling books and coffee mugs. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories tries to put theories about a missile intercepting the pentagon on equal footing with what really happened. It's absurd. If you want a page about alternate scenarios, get rid of the nonsense, or make it clear that such outlandish ideas have been debunked. Quite frankly, I think conspiracy theories are too generous a term. Debunked speculation is actually a more appropriate label for the page.--146.244.137.154 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I've discussed many of the "points" brought up by the theorists with a lot of people I know and I am usually responded to with a laugh. I mentioned that Charlie Sheen, et al may also agree with the theorists and the responses I get range from, "is he on drugs" to "he must be an idiot".--MONGO 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions about car bomb rumor on 9/11

When I first heard of the attacks, a car bomb was also mentionned. I believe they claimed it was in New York. Has anyone else heard of this? Evilbu 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember an initial report of a car bomb in central Washington, D.C. - very old versions of our Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks include the mention of a report of a car bomb at the State Department at 10:35 am. I wonder why that article was cut down so much. Rmhermen 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So a car bomb was reported in the news in DC? But, of course, there wasn't any? That could be relevant~~

Terrorism

Hi, I think it violates WP:NPOV by calling them terrorist attacks, and calling al qaeda a terrorist organization. It is better to remove terrorist from terrorrist attack and call al qaeda a fundamendalist group, as it is called on its article page. Nr9 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not violate the NPOV. The article is written to provide facts. As such removing content you or anyone else doesn't like makes the article inaccurate. --Scott Grayban 10:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV claim

This article does NOT violate the NPOV. It was clearly a terrorist attack on the U.S. User:Nr9 you need to stop removing all references to that. If you don't like the facts don't read it and create your own *facts* on another page. --Scott Grayban 10:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism implies it was meant to terrorize people. Other people have different opinions and think it is a crusade or struggle against american imperialism. NOte that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda avoids calling them a terrorist group directly, instead saying that the United States refers to them as a terrorist group. Nr9 10:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between the page Al_Qaeda and this page. This article pertains to the attacks on U.S. soil and that was clearly a terrorist attack. You can dispute this article in proper ways if you think the facts are wrong. Changing the content to fit your thoughts is not correct. --Scott Grayban 10:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it clearly a terrorist attack? I can easily see that it is an attack, but I don't see that it is necessarily meant to terrorize. How can I dispute this article? 70.137.187.146 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"How can I dispute this article?" You're doing it. Tom Harrison Talk 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, more explicitly, the facts do not say that it is necessarily a terrorist attack meant for the purpose of terrorizing people. It may be an attack just to destroy american buildings for the sake of destroying american buildings, or a take for the purpose of jihad. It is not correct to assume that the goal of the hijackers is to terrorize people. I doubt they think that terrorism works as a propaganda anyways, as it usually backfires. Attacks on american soil are meant solely to destroy american buildings and kill american people, not to terrorize them. 70.137.187.146 16:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's clear to me that the 9/11 hijackers were terrorists, and that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Tom Harrison Talk 16:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as it is clear to some the 9/11 hijackers were jihadi (or strugglers) and the al qaeda is a struggler against american imperialism. This type of wording is simply not NPOV. Nr9 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
And what do they call it when they kill each other because they don't belong to the same "class" of Muslims? A struggle also? The concept of justifying killing is beyond normal thinking here. To hide behind a religious book and call it a "struggle" when its clearly murder is a real shame to the Islam religion. I have many friends that are Islamic and it disgusts us that these types of people are so willing to trash the Islamic faith in such a manner. And why is it called American Imperialism? Because we prosper and the middle east countries don't? That there fault not ours. They are fighting against a system that would help them. Instead countries like Iraq refuse that help and want a person like Saddam back in power that mass murdered thousands of people and most times just for fun. Don't blame your issues on Americans or British because we didn't start that. You country people did and that's a fact. We didn't vote Saddam in his country allowed it. And when he was threatening all the countries around with a war I didn't see Osama or these other factions trying to get rid of him. So don't blame Americans for your problems. What happened 9-11 was clearly a act to terrorize the American public. Show me/us proof that all those people killed were soley connected in any form to whatever issues those terrorists claim? --Scott Grayban 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully the "American imperialism" debate belongs in a different article. Peter Grey 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think calling something with a negative connotation such as terrorism is clearly not NPOV. Its the same thing as if the article was "The September 11 attacks were a crusade against american imperialism." It is NPOV to just call it "attacks." Clearly, people in the Al qaeda would not call it terrorism. Nr9 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been over this before...and the concensus of editors supported the usage while those with an anti-American attitude didn't. 70.137.187.146 is wrong...they did the act to terrorize...high profile targets, cherry picked for maximum impact...absolutely this is terrorism. They were absolutlely trying to kill as many people as possible on 9/11, especially in NYC. Examine the UN accepted definition..."terrorism is an act of premeditated violence during peacetime." is essentially what it states.--MONGO 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is it not jihad then? It is arguable that the world is never at peace with American imperialism pushing the muslims over the edge. The editors are all influenced by American propaganda. I don't see this as a good measure of NPOV.Nr9 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is not an expression of careful neutrality, it's an inflammatory claim of moral equivalence. If you have a citation from some reliable source saying the 9/11 terrorists were gallant freedom fighters, quote it and we'll see if there's a consensus for including it in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 17:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, america's missile attacks can be claimed as some to be Terrorism too.. there is unlikely to be consensus to remove terrorism because most people on here are exposed to American media which calls these attacks terrorism. if this encyclopedia was in arabic, i'm sure people will calal them jihadi too. This facts makes this language usage violate NPOV. Calling people names like "terrorist" is childish when it comes to an encyclopedia. Nr9 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We also know that there is non consensus for calling it "terrorism" why should it be included? Nr9 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there is not a consensus to call 9/11 an act of terrorism? Tom Harrison Talk 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the motives of Al Qaeda, the tactic used was terrorism. One could argue the Pentagon was a valid military target - the World Trade Center was attacked only because of its symbolic value. Peter Grey 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

terrorism in american heritage dictionary is The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. note the word INTENTION. i doubt the fundamentalists have military tactics. they are doing it just to kill americans. the use of the word "terrorist" is contentious and should be removed Nr9 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am an american and not a muslim or arab or anything. I just don't want to see wikipedia being used as a part of the american propaganda machine by calling people "terrorists". Nr9 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying that Al Qaeda members don't qualify as terrorists because they don't have coherent strategic objectives (which they actually do, of course) is hardly neutral point-of-view. Peter Grey 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The word terrorist is hardly a neutral word. Its like calling americans infidels. 70.137.187.146 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary defines Terrorism as the following:
  1. The act of deliberately commiting an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
  2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
The use of "terrorist" attacks is proper, according to the definition. --Mrmiscellanious 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
NO PROOF THAT THE ACT OF VIOLENCE IS TO CREATE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. 70.137.187.146 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It complies completely with the definition of at least #2. It is terrorism. --Mrmiscellanious 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What, do you think it was insurance fraud? Even Bin Laden thinks it was terrorism. The burden of proof is show otherwise. Until then, it's terrorism. Peter Grey 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not claim that Al Qaeda did not do it. I claim they did it, but it is not terrorism. No Bin Laden doesn't think it is terrorism, he calls it a "struggle." 70.137.187.146 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a hard time grasping how this was not a terrorism incident as well. Even if one were to assume that that the attacks were not meant to create an emotional response, it is still terrorism to use "violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives"SkeenaR 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to define what are civilians and what are not. After all, civilians are still constituents of a gov't and they pay taxes to support the gov't. Jihad has long been declared. For some people, it has always been war. By the way, I have not seen this definition of terrorism in any other dictionary. If this definition is given, the US is also guilty of terrorism. 70.137.187.146 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view." The point of view that the attacks were terrorist is a widely-held opinion, a majority view, and the conclusion of the United States government. The point of view that the 19 identified were responsible for the attacks but the attacks were not terrorist is a point of view that has often been attempted to be presented in this article. The insertion so far has failed to reach a consensus among editors in this article. This has generally been because typically the authors attempt to define away terrorism rather than accepting a consensus definition for terrorism and applying it to the 19 hijackers. So such arguments that there's no such thing as terrorism belong in the Terrorism article, or that the conduct of the war in Iraq is terrorism belong in the Iraq War article. patsw 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason that the majority of you believe that these attacks are undeniably terrorism, is because of the US gov't and media, which keep repeating the word "terrorism" In many other countries, they are just called "the attacks" instead of "terrorist attacks." I don't believe that the wording in an encyclopedia should be guided by any particular gov'ts preferences. I do not object to a sentence saying "The US gov't considers these attacks to be terrorism." I do not see how one can object to having "terrorist attacks" modified to be "attacks" How would this edit make this article any less informative? 70.137.187.146 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And that is your point-of-view. How ever this attack happened in the U.S. and our point-of-view deems it was terrorism. When a bomb is dropped by U.S. Forces we called murders, Jihad kills Americans and its called a "struggle" and they hide behind there religion to justify it. Americans call it terrorism because 1) It killed innocent people including children. 2) It was soley done to hurt our country and to cause mass histeria. Let me tell you something User:70.137.187.146 I was there. If freaked me out. I saw the last plane hit the tower and I watched people jump to there death because they didn't want to be burned alive. I smelled burnt flesh and tasted the dust. It scared me and that is terrorism. --Scott Grayban 09:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Simply saying it might not be terrorism isn't enough. Sure, bin Ladin can call it a 'struggle' in strategic terms; terrorism was still the tactic. Peter Grey 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism might not be the tactic. The attacks may just be to kill american people and destroy american buildings, and not necessarily to induce terror. 70.137.187.146 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened 9-11 was clearly a act to terrorize the American public. Show me/us proof that all those people killed were soley connected in any form to whatever issues those terrorists claim? If you can't then its terrorism and murder. Or does Islam allow indiscrimate killing simple for ones citizenship? --Scott Grayban 06:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
these people are connected simply because they are constituents of a government with dubious foreign policy. A government is the responsibility of the people. If the people do not overthrow a government and choose to remain loyal to a government, then they are responsible for whatever their government does. this has nothing to do with islam. such an argument has been used by legitimate governments in wars in history70.137.187.146 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh my friend you are so wrong there. We vote our opinions here. You would be surprised how many even oppose the Iraq war. But even with all the people that are against it the majority rules. But you don't see us that are out voted going out and mass killing the ones that won. That's because we value our freedom. The ones that loss voice our rights in many forms by means of blogs, forums, and believe it or not the media. We wont over-throw a Government simply because it doesn't meet our expectations we work harder so that we can change the future. Did you know User:70.137.187.146 that in the U.S. that Mr. Bush is at his lowest percentage in American support? That is a major victory for the ones that lost trying to vote him out of office. That also means that more then likely there will not be a next President here that will be voted in that is a Republican. --Scott Grayban 09:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Repeat comments Peter Grey 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC) and Peter Grey 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC). Peter Grey 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be convinced if there exists a verifiable source that a al qaeda member calls himself a terrorist or those involved in islamic jihad call the 911 attacks terrorism. Otherwise, we must respect NPOV, and not only view this event from our side. There is a whole world out there with a different view towards 911. 70.137.187.146 08:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And so again we must conform to your way of thinking? And that is NPOV also? --Scott Grayban 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, since it happened in the U.S., I'm sure that this article which discusses the U.S. incident should conform to U.S. sentiment. I would be inclined to believe that aside from countries that are hostile to the U.S. and those countries with Islam as their primary religion, that the attacks would be viewed as terrorism.--MONGO 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That does not make sense. The War on Terror happened in the Middle East and Afghanistan, yet its article does not conform to Middle Eastern sentiment. Articles should be neutral. This one in particular, should not say that the attacks are "terrorist", as that is US sentiment. Why is the opinion of Islamic countries unimportant? They represent a large part of the world. calling the attacks "terrorist" is as biased as calling the attacks "jihad" Just because you hear it in US media everyday doesnt mean the rest of the world thinks that way. 70.137.187.146 09:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
9/11 happened in the U.S., not in Iraq or elsewhere...that is in the title of the article. It would be less descriptive to call them something they are not. Just to call them hijackers is a bit incorrect..they didn't do what hijackers have done in the past...take over a plane, redirect it and make some kind of demand. Instead, they killed the pilots and took over the control of the planes, using them as bombs to destroy cherry picked targets of maximum exposure and maximum impact...though the UN has not made an offcial declaration of what constitutes terrorism...the comment that terrorism is peacetime equivalent of war crimes certainly fits this situation. [209]--MONGO 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well

Considering the fact that everyone was terrified on 9/11... hmmm...

Sensationalist Caption on First Picture

The caption on the first picture in this article:

"A huge plume of smoke and fire can be seen emerging from the North Tower. Following the attack on the North Tower, many broadcasters were showing live coverage when a second plane, United Airlines Flight 175 (pictured above), crashed into the South Tower."

Smacks of sensationalism: I don't see any fire and "huge" also sounds inflated to me, "large" would be a better here.

Any thoughts?

ryguillian 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an unusually large cloud of smoke, even if that particular picture makes the size hard to judge. "Huge plume of fire", however, is incorrect. Peter Grey

Did Bush know?

Did Bush know about the attacks before they happened? Many people seem to think so. Hillary Clinton said so in a speech. Of course, she'd say anything to get herself in the news and further her own political agenda. But, did Bush know? I don't think he did. Even though he's made some prety dumb decisions in his life, I seriously doubt that he would make the super dumb decision to let this happen. It's like saying that Franklin Roosevelt knew about and approved Pearl Harbor. ITS JUST NOT TRUE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

1) The question is not whether he knew, but how much he knew. 2) This is not the place for speculating on what someone was thinking. Peter Grey 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Peter Grey, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that Bush did not know anything illegal about the attacks. I am aware that he asked to spend less on military funding soon before 9/11, but that does not make him a traitor. He did not betray his people at all in the way of knowing information about 9/11 that could have prevented it. And I will speculate all I want about what he was thinking, because I happen to be right. Also, I am in America, not Canada, so I know slightly more about it than you do. I also happen to be 14 years old.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

Illegal is not part of the question that was asked. Peter Grey 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm American, I'm 19, I was older than you are now when the WTC attacks occurred, and I also know that ever since the dawn of time that governments know way more than what they tell us. I am a Civil Air Patrol cadet, so don't call me unpatriotic, but I'm also not a drone and I think for myself. Don't be so quick to dismiss anything. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the bombngs in 1993, when I was just 33, the WTC was always better protected from terrorist attack from the ground. Intelligence analyst did indeed see patterns in a few of the future hijackers and their travels in and out of the U.S. Immigration inspectors oftentimes do note numerous trips in and out of the u.s. by foregn nationals but the standard questions include, "how long do you plan to stay in the U.S?", "Who is your employer", "What is your business here", etc. which are easily lied about. Immigration Inspectors have 45 seconds to determine if an applicant for entry in the U.S. will be allowed to proceed or if they will be taken to secondary inspection for further questioning. If these hijackers demonstrated few red flags, they would have all easily been able to enter the U.S., a few had student visas. In at least one known example, the FBI was contacted about foriegn nationals attending flight school and only wanting to learn manuvering, not take off and landing procedure. There were a number of clues and tidbids of information the intelliegence community had, but none of them were enough to act on, even if combined.--MONGO 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The statements above "...because I happen to be right. Also, I am in America, not Canada, so I know slightly more about it than you do..." have no place on Wikipedia. To me they sound like a personal attack on Peter Grey. Being in America, consuming American media does not necessarily make one more knowledgeable about Bush, 9/11, or other such topics. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Being 14 years old does not make you a authoritive contributor then. You have no "real" clue how the world is even run muchless the U.S. Gov. When you growup and have experienced real life then you can come back and make your claims. I am 42, did 20 years in the military and witnessed the attacks and lost a uncle in it. I am sure the U.S. Gov knew what was going to happen but because there is so much fighting between the Agencies, CIA and FBI, no one put the connections together until afterwards. That came out in the Congress Hearings. --Scott Grayban 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the government knew per se, as they only had limited clues that were not enough to raise suspicions above a miminal threat level. The feds get this level of threat all the time, even well before 9/11. I do agree wholeheartedly that the agencies tend, even now, to be somewhat possessive of "their" own intelligence gathering results.--MONGO 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello. It's me again. I am the kid who started this whole section called "Did Bush know?". Sorry about all that. I guess I got a little out of hand. The thing is, I just really do not appreciate when people keep things from me in an attempt to keep me safe. They think that just because I am under the age of 18, that I don't deserve to kow some things. I feel that this sort of thing has happened to the entire nation. They think that we do not deserve to know some things because we don't work in the White House or CIA or FBI. I want an end to the secrets. And an end to the lies. PLEASE feel free to comment!!!!!! Later!!! 70.124.132.176 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi: you'll find that the 9/11 pages are highly controversial. There is a subsection on the page here where conspiracy theories are mentioned. There's also an entire page called, appropriately enough, 9/11 conspiracy theories. I suggest that you focus your changes in these two places in order to get the most effect. And especially, post to the discussion area here. Make sure to source your comments (give reference to specific html links, for example: [210]). And most important of all, create a user ID under which you make your changes. Kaimiddleton 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
All and I do mean ALL Governements have secrets they keep from there citizens. From the U.S. to the U.K. to Saudia Arabia to even Iraq. How and what they use it for is up to them. Some use it to protect there country others use it to terrorize there country and I am sure all use it to hide there own illegal activities. People do not make war, Governements do. That is a fact of life and history has shown that. --Scott Grayban 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Even Iraq??,... Don't you mean especially Iraq.--146.244.137.197 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Later!!! User:70.124.132.176 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use this talk page for discussing editing this article and not general discussions on the September 11, 2001 attacks. patsw 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

There's a piece [211] that seems to figure in a little revert session. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic, but at the same time if there is some verifiable follow-up to the issues discussed, I'm sure there would be a place for it. Peter Grey 04:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it out, but I'm not against including the material if there are links to support it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Shukman, David (2006). Problems mount from 9/11 fallout. BBC News / Science/Nature. BBC. Retrieved on 2006-04-12.

medcabal back

Hello all -- I am back after a week to see if people are still interested in mediation about the 9/11 conspiracy theory paragraph. Looking at the discussion page here, it seems that things have moved on which is fine. If people still want my help, I'd be happy to join in -- just let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK -- haven't heard back, so I'll assume that things are moving along well. I'll strike off the medcabal; please feel free to reinstate if problems show up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
All is well...the truth has emerged...interestingly, it was here all along--MONGO 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Im still rejectnig the current branding of all alternativ theories with pejorative labels. --Striver 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Morning Shows

This section seems silly and unecessary. Perhaps it can be improved, but as it stands it is worthless (except as trivia). The first paragraph implies that Howard Stern was a source of comfort to many in New York and across the country, but certainly he was only listened to by a few. Secondly, the statement "to provide a voice of reason in the aftermath" is surely not a neutral point of view, no? Finally, it is not a overview of morning shows, only a breif statement about three, and three that are not particularly popular among most of the population I don't believe. Srnec 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Srnec, would you mind if I got rid of that section? I want to, but I just want somebody's approval. Since I seem to be a natural at upsetting people, I want to ask the advice of at least one registered user. I would REALLY appreciate it if I recieved a response from either you or somebody else. Please, everybody, feel free to respond, I do not want just Srnec's opinion, even though he was the one who started this section. If I do not get a response by tomorrow, which is April 17, 2006, I will delete this section. So, if you want this section to stay (even though I do not know why you would), please say something now. Later!!!! 64.12.116.201 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I have mixed feelings on this. I know for a fact, because my parents recored it all, that the Today Show also broadcasted during the attacks until the network broke in and took over. That isn't mentioned at all. --Scott Grayban 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that 'morning shows' covered the events seems to merely be one of timing - it was morning in the western hemisphere. In other parts of the world, television for other periods of the day would have been pre-empted. I recall that in my area at the time, every channel covered the attacks except one that had children's programming.
Fair enough then. --Scott Grayban 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with deleting this section (or moving it somewhere). This section doesn't mention the Today Show or other major broadcasts, but rather Howard Stern and a couple other less notable morning shows. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and cut this section. In the scheme of things, these morning radio shows aren't of enough importance to merit that much space here in this main article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

4th plane and the general government shootdown of passenger aircrafts authorization censorship on wikipedia

Some "trolls" here are trying to hide (move to 9/11 conspiracy ghetto) even the plain and corroborated fact that the government authorized passenger aircraft shootdown during that day! The legitimate question remains though is it true that the government didn't use that order afterall. For instance in Norman Mineta's Senate testimony he asserts that according to the orders given during the morning session in the White House bunker he eyewitnessed the 4th plane was ordered to be shot down. This Hamilton-Mineta clip is on the record/video for Christ sake..

What's the issue here about this? --Scott Grayban 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a significant development, and should have a mention on the article. The problem is more the attempt to tie the orders to the crash of the 4th airplane, when the actual crash was unrelated to any authorization given to the military. The article also does not currently (01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) mention the shut down of US airspace, which was quite important itself. Perhaps there should be a few lines about the immediate reactions, like closing airspace, evacuations of buildings in Washington and in fact prominent buildings and landmarks across the world, and NATO's official response. Peter Grey 01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Those are good points and they should be discussed...the airspace was shut down for a protracted period.--MONGO 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
From all accounts that I remember was Bush gave orders to shoot down the 4th plane if it got within a certain range although I don't remember what that distance was. But I can find out if that seems to be the issue. I have a buddy when I was in the AF still that was one of the fighter pilots involved with the protection of the White House during that time. --Scott Grayban 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I recommend this page for info on the shootdown/standdown issue. The trouble with the whole issue is that there are multiple timelines because the Commission created its own timelines which do not agree with NORADs. Bov 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry about all the reverts

Sorry about all the reverts today. We seemed to have a few more vandals then usual hitting this page and if any of them did something wrong we are sorry. --Scott Grayban 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for better summarization of the article

  • The article currently is very long with too much detail. Many of the sections can be combined into others and reorganized. Also, pictures tend to be a little disorganized with many randomely inserted into sections. I want this article to be featured so if you can help, please do so.--Ryz05 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have created a Pending tasks box, which people can use to help in the improvement of this article.--Ryz05 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new section names and reorganization

  • The sections in the article is really disorganized. I propose a new organization and some change of names. The sections will be like:
  1. Background- Who's accountable for the attack, what led to the attack (Motive), and what was United States doing at the time.
  2. The attacks- What happened in the attacks. Section can include Other planned attacks, Collapse of the WTC, etc.
  3. Aftermath- what happened after the attacks: international and national responses, War on Terror, Media, Fatalities, etc.
  4. Memorials- subsections can include Arts and literature, etc.
Basically, this article can draw on some organization ideas from the featured article Attack on Pearl Harbor. --Ryz05 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I support the idea of better organizing the sections. I've made a few changes, including moving the "Fatalities" and "Survivors" subsections to "the attacks" section. These don't really belong in the "aftermath" section (as suggested above). And the "Collapse of the WTC" section, as discussed here is more focused on the follow-up investigations. As such, I think it fits better in the "aftermath" section and sequential to the "Congressional inquiry" section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Which tower?

Is that in the first photo? Wouldn't that be the second attack, since there's already smoke coming out of the other tower in the picture? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage of terrorist...

Usage of terrosit in lead is unacceptable as pwer WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is a non negotiable polciy. I know a lot of people are watching this article so I am not going to get involved too teribly much. Thanks --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that even Al Jazeera refers to the "September 11 terrorist attacks", likewise the United Nations (pdf), and the vast majority of countries around the world do. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think use of the word terrorist is appropriate. Some may think the terrorists were Arabs plotting in a cave while I think it was elements within our own government, but the word seems to apply; here's from the terrorism page:

The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence" or the threat of violence, and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare. Kaimiddleton 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 17

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The C-130 at the Pentagon

There is no section dealing with the flight of a gray C130 Naval electronics warfare aircraft by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien of the Minessota Air National Guard that was seen by at least 13 witnesses shadowing fligh 77 prior to impact. The same C-130 was also present when flight 93 crashed. Just because the goose-stepping media refuses to present the compiled facts, it doesn't mean that Wiki should follow suit. 58.106.64.57 06:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have an easier time with this discussion at 9/11 conspiracy theories#The Pentagon. -Quasipalm 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Riiight. So a C-130 (a turboprop) with a max airspeed of 350mph intercepted and tailed a 757 jet traveling well in excess of 500 mph. And even if it managed to intercept, what was it supposed to do? Mcguyver a laser gun out of its electronics and shoot the 767 down? And an hour later it was in PA? Goddamn, why are we buying C-17's when we have super C-130's with fricking lasers on their heads? --Mmx1 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Airborne! Morton devonshire 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying the C-130 was involved in any 'conspiracy,' only that it was there and that it was an unusual feature - people on the ground thought it was another plane coming in for a hit and ran away. It was a part of the scene at the Pentagon and many witnesses reported seeing it. News articles were written to explain why it was there and what it did and saw. Why is this information threatening to editors on here when it was a simple fact of the events? I see no reason it shouldn't be mentioned. Bov 00:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, what's the significance of it if you aren't insinuating a conspiracy? There was a military plane in the sky above D.C. Whooopedy fucking doo. Many witnesses also reported fire trucks showing up. Why isn't there a mention of that? Because it's not notable. And unless you claim some sort of notability for it, its presence only implies some non-existent theory that its presence was out of the ordinary. --Mmx1 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times headline on September 11, 2001 was "Attacks Held To Be A Conspiracy." An article in the New Jersey Bergen Record describing five Israeli men in an explosives-tainted moving van with "maps linking them to the bombing plot" was titled "Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators." This Wikipedia page on the September 11 attacks describes a rather implausible conspiracy theory about causation. The word "conspiracy" is not a pejorative. That said, considering the seizure and suppression of all Pentagon impact footage, the significance of the C-130 is best described in the words of two witnesses published in Arlington's Daily Press: "The second plane looked similar to a C-130 transport plane ... it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar--while at the same time--guiding the jet toward the Pentagon." (Keith Wheelhouse, Daily Press, September 14, 2001); "Thank God somebody else saw that ... It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly Knowles, Daily Press, September 15, 2001). C-130 witness compendium 58.106.64.57 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Did you miss the part where a C-130 CANNOT fly at over 500 miles per hour? Fucking geniuses.--Mmx1 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they did. Or, maybe it's some super-secret 130 mod. In any case, what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that military aircraft are contently in the air doing many things including flying in various patterns, or simply circles. Usually these are various training missions. The sky is full of them, and I would be surprised if throughout the day there where not hundreds of military planes in and around Washington DC and the surrounding states simply driving around in “suspicious” patterns. Jake b 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


The potty-mouthed ad hominem abuse (Mmx), followed by yet another appeal to ridicule (Jakeb), are just more tired old logical fallacies being deployed to deflect from the documented facts. The anti-Nazi Nizkor poject has an excellent collection of logical fallacies for your reference, just in case you feel obliged to shoot your mouths off again in this illogical and unreasonabled manner.
The minimum flying speed of a 757 is all that matters, of course, to account for the fact (look that word up in a dictionary) that a gray C-130 NAVAL ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT accompanied flight 77 to the Pentagon through several miles of restricted airspace. Like the glowing stream of molten iron (noto bene: molten) captured on video flowing from the South Tower a minute prior to its collapse, the C-130 was present at flights 77 and 93. Don't try to hide it. Confabulous 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks

I think there should be a section on the "racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks," which is pretty significant and widely publicized.--Ryz05 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good idea to put up a first draft here on the talk page for review before adding to the article. -Quasipalm 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Following the attacks, 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants were fingerprinted and registered, 8,000 Arab and Muslim men were interviewed, and 5,000 foreign nationals were detained [212]."

Can add it? 86.131.205.124 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Andy

Are there any more solid references? Those are "nice round numbers", I'm not questioning that it happened or that the numbers where large, but "nice round numbers" like that are made up numbers. Is there any source other than the nybooks people that would better address the statistics issue? Jake b 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Videos

I found this fairly well done 9/11 tribute on google video. Maybe we could use this discussion to propose additions to the media section. Bubba61389 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3380474950135485800


Pro-Bush flag-waver . -- max rspct leave a message 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn, he didn't even ask to put that video in. We're jumping to conclusions here aren't we? Since when did memorializing 9-11 become synonymous with "Pro-Bush flag-waver". Hell, when did flag-waver become an epithet? Are we supposed to be by default self-hating Americans who take an attack on our country as "oh, nothing special"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)
Conspiracy theorist, probably. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't swear. Its pretty obvious he wants memorial/tributes on there. There are enough external vids; I did not say they weren't significant; Don't worry .. The attacks were pretty specific.. They weren't aimed at you. Anyway did you have anything to do with the US naval bombardment of Lebanon in eighties? Palestinian situation? I know there are plenty of nervous americans over there... wound-up by the patriotic drive and media/us gov propaganda. But really the USA is probably one of the safest places to live in right now. But I hope you are not all here to troll ;-). Should you hate yourselves? Maybe voting americans should ask themselves this. Bin Laden can appear courteous and lays it out simply for the 'average' american: "Oh, American people....(and later on).. And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children." "Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." [213] -- max rspct leave a message 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh......I live in NYC and my father used to work in the Towers, but for a fortuitous layoff. Oh, but the attacks weren't aimed at me, personally, by name. I see. I feel much better now, thanks. There is a moral distinction between collateral damage and deliberately targeting noncombatants. --Mmx1 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
He's trying to point out that glorifying one side of a two sided argument/fight/war while demonising the other is pointless: There are two sides to everything. It is not in question that what happened to the WTC was evil, but what about what happened elsewhere? If indeed Osama Bin Laden attacked America, (Something that is as difficult to prove as any other explanation surrounding the event), what of the attacks upon Lebanon that he alleges took place? Are they not as demonic as the attacks on the WTC? Should not, in that case, the perpetrators of that attack also look to themselves and their institutions to see what justification they have for self-glorification? The two biggest evils in this modern world are Patriotism, which justifies murder, and Power, which is the motive for murder. Both sides in this are guilty of both crimes. Cathal 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"There are two sides to everything." No, there aren't. Tom Harrison Talk 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to humbly suggest the addition of Loose Change to the videos area, as is the intent of this subheading. Cathal

I second Cathal Loose Change is an important piece of democracy that should be included. It wasn't made by flag-burning terrorists. It was made by a dedicated team of young American students who love their country and the principles of freedom upon which it was founded. It is a highly biased but mainly factual account of specific details of the events that are not covered by the other video links. My one concern is that it IS very POV. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the policy on POV links. Are they allowed? Could we include a POV warning on the link? Digiterata 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Loose Change is not a reliable source, it is an hour and a half of bad science and begging the question from personal ignorance. Jefffire 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this. The same can be said of both sides of the argument, and calling one side stupid and the other correct is both childish and simple-minded. The video cites references, and makes fewer assumptions than others I could mention. The thrust in Loose Change is the questions, not the answers. And I prefer open questions to questionable answers. Cathal 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no useful information to be gleamed from the video then. Jefffire 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually my point was that there was as much information to be gleaned from it as from the official information. How much weight you put in both is a matter of preference, but neither can be relied upon for the answer. Difference is, one side is trying to offer one, and the other is looking for proof. The point of videos such as Loose Change is not that they offer an explanation, but that they highlight the suspicion around the official one. For the record, your previous assertion that it was bad science is quite wrong. The two major points in Loose Change and in the arguments it is based upon are thus:

  • The vapourisation temperature of aircraft-grade metal is too high for the burning temperature of the fuel, so claims that the plane evaporated cannot be true.
  • Even if it were true and the plane evaporated (Pentagon), how did they then recover DNA for analysis? And don't give me any CSI contrived explanations: I study genetics, I know it's impossible under these circumstances
  • The buildings simply could not have collapsed from a plane impact or burning fuel: The melting point of normal steel is far exceeding the burn temperature of aircraft fuel, and this steel was not normal. And even if they did melt, resulting in collapse; the building could not then have fallen at freefall velocities, as its own resistance would have slowed it considerably.

Regardless of your "allegiances", should you attempt to define them, reasoned debate cannot dispatch these facts. It's not bad science, because it is BASIC science. Cathal

In any case, I was not presenting a POV initially. I would like for Loose Change, as a video that, disregarding personal preferences, is influential and important in the debate, be included in the "Videos" section. I was going to do so myself, but apparently I have to get it vetted here. It is informative but not definitive, and presents a point of view: Exactly as all of the current ones in the list do. Cathal 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital loves a bit of Genocide -- max rspct leave a message 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Loose Change is that it's a bunch of people with a clear agenda and no credentials asking politically-loaded engineering-related questions, which might be evident if only they had anything resembling a background in the subject. Also, max rspct, I think your inflammatory behavior in this section is inappropriate. Please mind WP:CIV. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In response: They don't need credentials. As with almost every other video/press release/tidbit relating to this issue, they requested their information from experts rather than contriving it themselves. However, I contend that in many cases evident in this case, you don't even need to be an expert to draw conclusions.
I agree with you regarding Max Rspct's comments. While they may have been intended to display another POV, they were needlessly inflammatory, and that's exactly what this disscussion doesn't need. Cathal

If the theories outlined in Loose Change are, in fact, "requested from experts," then this is news to me, after watching it twice. No one in the video ever claimed to have any kind of engineering credentials. To my knowledge, the only person with any academic credentials who is on board with the conspiracy theorists is Stephen Jones, whose other research activities include searching for evidence of Jesus' supposed visit to North America. [214]

68.254.115.174 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)While I have not yet viewed [215], I have read Professor Jones' peer-reviewed article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" available at [216]. And, while you can attempt to disregard Professor Jones' as a 'conspiratorialist' by referencing his research above, please remember that the Mormon religion believes in the possibility that Jesus appeared in America. To investigate this possibility does not alter Professor Jones' credentials as a qualified expert to investigate the physics of the collapses on 9/11. 68.254.115.174 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do have to be an expert to understand the tangled web of physics that is involved in the collapse of a high-rise building. For example, let's take one of the issues raised in Loose Change you mentioned above (the bolded numbering is mine):

    (1)The buildings simply could not have collapsed from a plane impact or burning fuel: The   
    melting point of normal steel is far exceeding the burn temperature of aircraft fuel, and this     
    steel was not normal. (2)And even if they did melt, resulting in collapse; the building    
    could not then have fallen at freefall velocities, as its own resistance would have slowed it       
    considerably.

(1) was addressed a while ago in an article published in Scientific American.

    For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777  
    degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed
    towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. 
    Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in    
    subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of  
    Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 
    liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and 
    paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above     
    1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials  
    of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and       
    then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss 
    failed,  others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor     
    subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to    
    crumble.

As for (2), it is explained in detail in the Journal of Engineering by a couple of faculty from Northwestern University's engineering department.[217] I can't paste the relevant section here because the mathemtics are getting mangled in the process, but you can find it for yourself at the bottom right of page 7. It is titled Didn’t Plastic Deformations "Cushion" the Vertical Impact? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


If the only person with any "academic credentials" questioning the implausible and hypercontradictory official narrative is Stephen Jones, then all the other "scholars for 911 truth" must have no academic credentials. I didn't know that, rephotsirc. I did discover, via wikipedia, that the work of Jim Hoffman "has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, and Nature." Do you have those kind of credentials? 58.106.64.57 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim to have engineering credentials. But I didn't argue from my own authority, either. I simply directed Cathal to where he could find the opinions of professionals concerning the theory he mentioned. As for Jim Hoffman, I see that his bio mentions he is a software designer who has been featured in science magazines. But as his chief occupation at the moment seems to be publicy attacking those very publications for debunking his theories about 9/11, is that any suprise?
Looking over their membership list of the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth at their official website, many of them seem to be M.A. and Ph.D students in things like English, Philosophy and Comparative Religion. I don't see one engineer in the bunch. Even on the list of their most distinguished members on the Wikipedia article, there is only one person who has an academic degree in anything resembling a field relevant to the subject--and suprise, it's Stephen Jones. The point of all this is that 9/11 conspiracy theory material is not a reliable, authoritative or undisputed source. They belong on their own pages--not on this article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone pasted this link Loose Change 911 - What really happened on 911. which was removed for not being mentionned on the Talk page - it is a must ad since it is by far the most well done and patriotic video ever to be released about 911. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.82.42 (talk • contribs)

I second the addition of Loose Change. It is an important piece of democracy that should be included. It wasn't made by flag-burning terrorists. It was made by a dedicated team of young American students whos only credentials are that they are curious, skeptical and love their country and the principles of freedom upon which it was founded. It is a highly biased but mainly factual account of specific anomolies in the official account of the events of 9/11 that are not covered by the other video links. My one concern is that it IS very POV. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the policy on POV links. Are they allowed? Could we include a POV warning on the link? Digiterata 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I third the addition of "Loose Change." It shows that there is more than one mainstream view to the events of 9/11. It is highly regarded as a well documented and well factualized film, with many scientific facts and political enigmas. A question I would like answered is how do we actually go about allowing the video to be added? We can sit here and talk about it all day but in the end of the day it comes down to if the video is added or not. User:buckshots35 12:43, 29 April 2006
Did you not read the entire section above ? rehpotsirhc demonstrated in simple enough terms that Loose Change can't be added because it's not a reliable source. The authors simply don't have any kind of credentials related to their claims. If a renowned French chef chef wrote a book about the nuclear crisis with Iran, his book wouldn't be worth much. Unmitigated Success 14:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change should be dismissed because it is deliberately flawed, and because it is inescapably promoted by counter intelligence professionals for that very reason - including good PR courtesy of FOX News. Let me repeat that: good PR courtesy of FOX. But this raw and continuous footage -(app.10Mb)- shows a glowing stream of molten metal gushing, in a most spectacular fashion, from a corner of the South tower, approximately 1 minute prior to its collapse.
Can anyone think of a reason for not including a link to this footage in the main article? Confabulous 11:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence citation in summary.

Digiterata (Normal Nick):This is supposed to be a stub to summarize the arguments in the conspiracy article, not to present evidence they cite. This has been established as consensus repeatedly. Stop adding material to the article to support your POV. --Mmx1

Mmx1 please see my post on Admin:Tom Harrison's page re:'sock puppet'. I am not Normal Nick. I don't know where you got that from, but please stop accusing me of such. As for citing evidence in a Wikipedia article, shame on me for mis-reading the NPOV policy. My interpretation of the quote below is that "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one..."
Full Quote from Wikipedia Policy:
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I dunno, how about this? [218] [219]. Sure seemed like you were pointing your sig to his talk page.

My god, we've been over this countless times. Your conspiracy views are not significant. They are a minority and refuted viewpoint based on pseudoscience and we are under no obligation to include them. Not all views are equal --Mmx1 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken re: the links you cite. I am new to Wikipedia and did some copy/pasting since at the time I didn't know how to add my own sig. Since I was attempting to support Normal Nick's edits, I naturally copied and modified his sig. The fact that there has been this much debate about the neutrality of this article stands as evidence that there exist a significant minority who believe something other than the official story. I make no claim about their validity one way or the other, but the fact is they are held by a significant minority. [220] In fact, I don't buy most of them personally, but I do know that several relevant facts about the events are missing from this article, solely because they call into question the official story. While I can appreciate the sensitive nature of the topic, none of us are well-served by a one-sided account. Please have a look at Cathal comments above "Facts and Nothing But" for examples of such ommissions. And please, let's try and keep the level of discourse civil in the future please. While we may disagree on the details, we do share the common goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased article (I hope) Digiterata 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Nothing But

As a fresh voice in the crowd I'm hoping my viewpoint can be helpful in some way to the discussion rather than simply fuelling the fire. Wikipedia is an Encylcopaedia, and as such, attempts to present facts. Facts are confirmed and conclusively proven explanations to model real life events or systems. Something cannot be considered a hard fact if there are errors, holes or reasonable arguments against the explanation backing it up.

Here I am going to present facts, as an example of what this article actually has to build upon: This is not an argument for either side, this is a sample list. If it is incomplete, then I'm sorry, but that's not the point. Please read with a mind to reviewing the number of concrete and provable facts in the article, remembering that neither of the accused's testimony can count as "Proof" when they are themselves under suspicion

I am here going to present as many Facts as I can about the events, including those from both sides of the argument. Regardless of my views on the topic, please be conscious that I am trying to present as fully as I can the whole picture as it is known. Where they appear, I have not presented burning/melting/vapourising temperatures here, as they are readily available to those seeking them, and I feel they may serve to make this list appear biased, regardless of their factual content.

With respect to the Two Towers of the World Trade Centre, NY:

  • It is factual that the two main towers of the WTC and one ancillary building were destroyed on 11/09/01.
  • It is factual that eyewitnesses and video evidence showed planes striking the towers before their destruction.
  • It is factual that official documents and accounts from those in the aviation industry, and the government of the United States, detailed the two planes veering off projected course and heading for New York rather than their intended destination.
  • It is factual that the planes executed extreme flight manouvers in order to change altitude and bearing in a short period of time.
  • It is factual that one viewpoint explains this phenomenon by citing trained personnel hijacking the planes and executing the manouvers.
  • It is factual that military personnel have claimed said manouvers are difficult or impossible for trained personnel to execute in the class of plane commonly asserted to have caused the event.
  • It is factual that the towers fell at freefall speeds, in accordance with Newtonian gravity.
  • It is factual that video evidence and eyewitness accounts claim to have recorded secondary explosions.
  • It is factual that the media coverage of the event on the day of the attacks repeatedly and without ambiguity refferred to secondary explosions in the buildings, and many of these references were made by experts in demolition and fire safety personnel.
  • It is factual that large fires were in evidence in both towers, following the large fuel explosion of the airplane kerosene fuel.
  • It is factual that the towers were designed to withstand such an attack
  • It is factual that some experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby kerosine fuel caused temperatures sufficient to melt the structural supports of the buildings.
  • It is factual that other experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby the structural supports would only melt at temperatures exceeding the burn temperature of kerosine, and instead advocated a deliberate demolition explanation.
  • It is factual that many lives were lost during the event.
  • It is factual that bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the building days prior to the attacks.
  • It is factual that there is convincing evidence of insider trading in the WTC regarding the stocks of both airline companies involved in the event; official "bets" that share prices in both would drop dramatically, and that the number of these bets exceeded the statistical norm by, at peak, a factor of eleven.
  • It is factual that the information regarding this insider trading has been passed to the FBI, and that no investigations are underway or planned regarding this information.
  • It is factual that some experts have verified video accounts of the event.
  • It is factual that other experts have brought the same video accounts into question.

With regard to the Pentagon and damage done thereunto:

  • It is factual that structural damage and fire was caused to the Pentagon Building in 11/09/01
  • It is factual that several streetlamps were damaged along a vector approaching the pentagon face in question.
  • It is factual that there was disturbance of the soil and grass outside the block in question on the day of the event.
  • It is factual that there was a hole in the side of the face of the building, and a tunnel of similar diameter continuing into the building along a roughly straight vector.
  • It is factual that one viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airplane striking the side of the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.
  • It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by placed demolitions explosives within the building. There are few, if any, commonly cited eyewitness accounts to support this theory.
  • It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airborne military weapon striking the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.
  • It is factual that, aside from the hole in the building, there was little structural damage to give an accurate estimation of the shape of the object striking the building.
  • It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the plane fuselage, engines and contents was vapourised by the kerosine explosion.
  • It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the remains of the passengers or crew of the plane were recovered and identified with few exceptions by DNA analysis of the remains.
  • It is factual that, as a counterpoint offered by those explaining this as a weapons strike, the metal content of the plane could not have vapourised at the burning temperature of kerosine.
  • It is factual that, had an explosion taken place with sufficient temperatures to vapourise the metal content of the plane, the human remains of the Crew or Passengers could not have remained to be identified by DNA analysis.
  • It is factual that several CCTV systems captured the event in resolution sufficient to confer hard evidence to either theory.
  • It is factual that the aforementioned tapes were confiscated by the Government of the United States, and their contents have not been revealed.


I will not attempt to present facts for the events surrounding the alleged fourth plane, as there are no definitive facts surrounding that dispute.

On the Behaviour of both Alleged conspirators, the US Government and Osama Bin Laden:

  • It is a fact that, at the time of the event, the President of the United States was in America, sitting in a primary school classroom.
  • It is a fact that, at the time of the event (by his own account), Osama Bin Laden was in Afganistan.
  • It is a fact that, when informed of the event, the President did not leave his position, and did not take administrative action for an amount of time approximating ten minutes.
  • It is a fact that, on the day of the event, the bulk of the United States Airforce was occupied on training missions and war games.
  • It is a fact that, having recieved a phonecall announcing a hijacked plane en route to the affected areas, the United States Airforce did not scramble aircraft to intercept or investigate.
  • It is a fact that (as noted before) the investigative agencies of the United States Government, tasked with investigation into fraud and the investigation into this event, have not begun an investigation into the apparent foreknowledge and insider trading that is evident from trade records leading up to the event for the airline companies named.
  • It is a fact that the stock indices of the airlines dropped dramatically after the event, and that the aforementioned bets on these indices have borne profit.
  • It is a fact that all such transactions are traceable and investigable by the United States Government
  • It is a fact that none of these have been investigated.
  • It is a fact that airline activity was shut down nationwide after the event.
  • It is a fact that the Government enacted measures to monitor activity in the United States after the event (Their motives will not be presented as fact as there is dispute)
  • It is a fact that in the wake of the events, the Government of the United States undertook an invasion of a foreign country, Afganistan, despite UN objection.
  • It is a fact that, claiming compliance with the events of 11/09/01, the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom invaded another foreign country, Iraq.

Note here that I have excluded video evidence about Osama bin Laden for the same reason as with the "Fourth Plane": there is nothing conclusive that can be said about either viewpoint as the veracity of the videos cannot be confirmed, regardless of their source. For more information on the tapes themselves one need only look them up on google, or see Videos of bin Laden.

If this seems POV, I tried to avoid it. Perhaps that says something. I am not going to offer an explanation or an opinion. I am simply making a point that I would like both sides of this argument to consider, remembering that this is not the place to make assertions about which viewpoint is correct: This is Wikipedia. And here, we present what facts are known. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, the facts available on this event are ambiguous at best and little can be said for certain about the event overall. Wikipedia must present the facts in total and represent both sides of the argument. It must then leave it to the reader to come to an informed, reasoned decision either way.

My suggestion regarding this article is simplistic and neutral: According to the NPOV policy, this article should represent both sides of the debate. Either make a new article which represents both sides of the argument, or make a parent page that represents neither view, but links to sister pages for the two explanations. In a perfect world these sister pages would cross link to one another to present an overall, point-for-point breakdown of everything significant that can be known about the event. Furthurmore, I agree with the view that using "Conspiracy Theory" to describe the alternate viewpoint(s) is a frame, and that it intentionally or unintentionally leads the viewer to view the alternate view more critically than is fair. Given that both viewpoints allege conspiracy, albiet by different groups, one could argue that both be placed under this heading (As one comically bitter essayist has done [221].

It should have a neutral nomenclature in a topic as serious as this one, such as:

  • Alternative Explanations
  • Allegations against Party X
  • Conflicting Evidence

Or something with a similar lack of colour.

As mentioned above, the crux of this message, aside from the suggestions given just previously, is to demonstrate how little is known. There's also a large problem looming over this debate re:the article: Much of the informations represented in the article is based upon information written/released/put forward by one of the possible attackers of the USA; the government itself.

Can Wikipedia accept and use information put forward by one of the parties in question? As a hypothetical exercise, imagine how you'd like to see all of the information in this article be instead based upon official statements from Osama Bin Laden? Would the testimony of one of the possible attackers be acceptable as evidence?

I realise there's no easy solution to this problem, as the common perception of the "event" is what the government has detailed about it, and as I've tried to demonstrate, neither viewpoint can be conclusively demonstrated with the information available to Wikipedia. Only by presenting both views critically and in tandem can a truly neutral article be written.

Silencing one side of the argument will achieve nothing but giving it more allure. Shouting down the other side of the argument will achieve nothing more than elevating the dispute.

I am going to add another heading. Anyone hoping to contribute should try to keep their opinions neutral and avoid flaming and trolling. Any statements made should not be conjecture: While commonly known facts are no issue, if you want to make a valid point, please cite reference. And please, please remember: This is a talk page about the article, not the event itself. Discuss what Wikipedia should show and what wikipedia shouldn't, after reading and considering the NPOV guidelines presented by the good people of Wikipedia itself.

This has been an exhaustive and overly verbose message from Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work, and no proof is provided of either a deliberate government coverup or of controlled demolition. When you can prove these things, don't waste time here in this forum, call the Washington Post.--MONGO 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that user:Cathal was attempting to 'prove' a deliberate government coverup or anything of the sort. He simply listed a number of relevant and factual statements which aren't included in the current article. User:Cathal specifically stated that there neither the official story nor the 'conspiracy theories' adequately explain all the facts. As such, in order to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, some of these data points need to be included. Digiterata 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I commend your effort, but an indiscriminate list of facts (although some are wrong, and some are opinions disguised as facts) does more to obscure rather than clarify. Peter Grey 06:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Proof of a deliberate government coverup can be found by scrutinizing the array of implausible, impossible, or mutually contradictory government claims, such as the indestructable hijacker's passport that fell intact at the feet of an FBI agent on the streets of New York after its owner had been vaporized. A much quicker proof was established when the FBI seized and suppressed footage of the Pentagon attack, since suppression is, by definition, "a coverup." As for "tell the Washington post", witness Alan Cleveland reported that he gave the washingtonpost.com his full story about the Pentagon attack, "but they did not print it as I have told you." It would seem that those who framed the wikipedia version of 911 have adopted a similar algorithm. 58.106.64.57 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Who is that...Alan Cleveland...google turns up many [222]...or is this more misrepresentation of quotes by eyewitnesses to said events...where a portion of someone's comment is misconstrued to be something that wasn't what they really meant.--MONGO 08:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the POV tag in this article. As this is a controversial issue, I believe this tag should never be removed, unless there is any consensus: Witch is unlikely to ever happend. I also agree that the most verifyable facts mentioned by Digeterata should be mentioned, but some of them need need proffs and seem to be fragile in terms of verifiability.
This user contacted me on my talk page saying that Tom Harrison acused him/her of beeing a sock puppet of mine. This is not true and I had no reason to do such a thing. I feel this assumption of bad faith from an administrator as ridiculous and this makes me question where should I report his bad behaviour, that I find incompatible both with Wikipedia principles and his responsabilities as an admin.Normal nick 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you should report my "bad behavior" as widely as possible. Here's a link to help you do it: [223]. I stand by my remarks. Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I need to apologize here, I caused this misunderstanding. Tom Harrison please see my comment on Talk. I mistakenly attributed a comment to you that was actually posted by Kmf164. Didn't mean to inflame this situation, simply a misunderstanding. Digiterata 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand; It's easy enough to misread these things. No hard feelings. Tom Harrison Talk 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Technically, One World Trade Center, Two world Trade Center, Three World Trade Center (The Mariott Hotel) and Seven World Trade Center was desroyed on September 11th. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: The topic of facts which do not support the mainstream view of events being aggressively ommitted has come up before but has not yet been resolved. I have added a '{POV}' tag to the main article, which I believe should remain until a satisfactory consensus has been reached Digiterata 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Question/Comment/Suggestion Re: The Facts and Nothing But, in order to try and move towards a common consensus on the issue of relevant facts being ommitted from this article primarily because they discredit the official accounts, I have copied the list below to my Talk page. Please have a look. I have also taken the step of identifying each point as either a (Hard Fact) or an (Arguable) fact. This represents my personal opinion and I welcome input from the community. If we are able to improve the integrity of these points, it may make sense to move them back to this page to append/replace the content below. At the moment, I am using my personal Talk page as a staging area.
Please advise if this is a reasonable approach or if I should move my comments to the main 9/11 page immediately. I'm reluctant to do so at this point as the discussion is already getting quite lengthy. I hope we all share the common goal of ensuring that this article maintains a fair and balance (No, not equal, balanced) description of the facts surrounding these events. I welcome feedback, input, and biting criticism about the points mentioned as well as my recommended approach. Digiterata 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag: The (Disputed) tag was added in response to issue of specific facts being intentionally omitted from the article primarily because these facts do not correspond to the official story. That issue hasn't changed. Therefore I have added back the Tag. For specific examples see above comments by Cathal under Facts and Nothing But or see my [User:Digiterata|Talk]] page.

Reasoned Debate about what should and shouldn't be included

If you haven't done so, please read the latter part of the above article. Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Consider this my vote to include either:

  • Two separate sister pages representing both views under this parent page
  • One page which comprehensively represents both sides while maintaining absolute neutrality on the issue, and not citing any references from either of the alleged perpetrators, including Osama Bin Laden and the Al Quieda and the United States Government.

And to eliminate usage of the word "Conspiracy", leaving two "Theories", for neutrality's sake. Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for two sister pages. See my comments below under 'Criticism of Official Account' and 'Conspiracy and POV' I've tried to work within this main article, without success. What may make sense is a '9/11 Disambiguous' parent page. I don't know how to do it, but it has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is possible. --Digiterata 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir militants responsible?

When the attacks occured, I remember clearly that the first group of people claming responsibilty for this senseless attack was the Kashmir militants. It was on the Singapore television on Channel NewsAsia. It seems that the whole world ignored this confession soon after. Does anyone remember anything about this or am I just dreaming? Or is their confession proven to be a hoax? Should this be included in the article? This has been bugging me for nearly 5 years now and the attention has shifted fully on Osama bin Laden's involvement. Any comments would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Atta called from the airplane he was on to another hijacker on a different airplane...Atta was affiliated with Al queda and links were found that connect almost all the 19 hijackers with Al queda...the Kashmiri militants may have just wanted the notoriety.--MONGO 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Some recovered physical evidence

This would be the Atta whose passport materialized at the feet of an FBI agent in New York, mongo? Do you have a reference for this alleged plane-to-plane telephone call made by Atta? If so, maybe you can include it in the main article with references to the indestructable passport.58.106.64.57 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Telephone records...that's easy...get a username or do you already have one...common effort by conspiracy theorists...insult and use multiple IP's and usernames to make it look like they have strength in numbers....nice try.--MONGO 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
please don't spin defamatory lies about me based upon your own imaginings, MONGO. I have one computer, one IP , consistent for all of my posts here - and I leveled no insults at you. Please reference the claim about the telephone call. Saying "telephone records" and "get a user name" doesn't help anyone wanting to know the source for your claim. Here are the references for the miracle passport (cache) and for the censorship of Cleveland's astonishing testimony. (webarchive - see 2nd letter from Cleveland) 58.106.64.57 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one ounce of proof that there was a government coverup or controlled demolition...okay, I didn't think so...next time, report your lack of findings to a blog...it's much better suited there. "Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45. Seven minutes later, Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport. They spoke for three minutes. It would be their final conversation." reference of phone call: "3.The call was placed from a pay phone in Terminal C (between the screening checkpoint and boarding gate).We presume Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure. Logan International Airport Aug. 15, 2003); see also FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11)." all from 9/11 Commission Report..oh, that's right, I can't cite them...they are part of the big coverup!--MONGO 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


I am grateful that you apologized for the defamatory slur, Mongo, and for providing proof for your theory of collapse instead of just supporting evidence. Your reference describes a phone call placed before Atta boarded the plane, not during the flight as you had asserted. Thanks for correcting your mistake and providing a source.
I hope you have read Alen Cleveland's testimony, and I hope that you will consider including sections on

  • the gray C-130 electronic warfare aircraft that was near flights 77 and 93,
  • the miraculous appearance of Atta's indestructable passport at the feet of an FBI agent in New York,
  • the five Israelis who were detained after being arrested in an explosives-tainted moving van with "maps linking them to the bombing plot," and
  • the seizure and suppression of Pentagon video evidence.

The addition of these documented facts would be a courtesy to all readers who expect more than the disputed and very controversial government POV that has been presented, in a rather faith-based kind of way, here at wikipedia . Thanks in anticipation. 58.106.64.57 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. I created an acccount and will sign in henceforth. Confabulous 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't apologize, for I have nothing to apologize for. As far as the rest of your comment...what are you talking about?...we don't violate numerous policies in Wikipedia to report conjecture, so no, I have no plans of incorporating the things you have just mentioned in this article. They have no basis in fact. Stop reading unscientific websites that are just conspiracy theory nonsense. I think we have been through the "Jewish Plot" ridiculousness already.--MONGO 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Everything I included in my list is a referenced fact, MONGO, not "conjecture" - please see a dictionary for the plain english common useage definitions of these two words. One of my references included statements by the C-130 pilot himself (Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002), as well as a Pentagon spokeperson (Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, Daily Press, October 17, 2001), confirming 90% of the C-130 witness testimony. I am not sure how you can categorize any of the items in my list of well-documented facts that should be included in the article as "conjecture". You also infered that I was using multiple identities for my contributions in an earlier response, and as you correctly noted, you have not apologized for that defamatory slur. Appeals to ridicule, misrepresenting officialy documented facts as "speculation," and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks don't seem to be valid reasons for omitting these well-documented facts from the article. Please reconsider. Confabulous 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Déjà Vu (it means "already seen")

It seems like we are starting to repeat the discussion that miraculously went away during the mediation cabal scrutiny. Let's review some highlights:

  • Buildings do not fall down by consensus. This doesn't mean that the professional opinions of structural engineers are beyond reproach, but it does mean simply believing the collapse 'looked wrong' is not enough.
  • This article is about a historical event. There is a conventional understanding of what happened, and while challenges to that account are welcome, they will be held to a higher standard of evidence.
  • Not every alternative scenario is necessarily a 'conspiracy theory', but the ones that are based on paranoia and/or errors of fact are. Peter Grey 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Buildings do not fall down by consensus". Nicely put. --Mmx1 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't everything

This might be a better choice for some content: Blogger: Create your Blog Now -- FREE. I'm just sayin'. Tom Harrison Talk 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is everything. --Cocopuffberman 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Not at all. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A master plan for all conspiracy theorists, then they can control what is in the blog, just like the conspiracy theory websites do...imagine the possibilities...misinformation run amok.--MONGO 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A good conspiracy is one that cant be proven. Conspiracies make great novels and books also poor wikipedia articles ;).
For Sep/11ths case, it is the goverments hesistancy in releasing information which practicaly hand-fed conspiracy theorists. Lucky us...
--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do there seem to be a new pair of nutties every other week? --Mmx1 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

This page is for discussing changes to the article. It is not a general-purpose web board where any of us can say what he thinks about terrorism, 9/11, conspiracy theories, or each other; especially not each other. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Western media?

"The attacks were widely referred [to] as terrorism by most of the western media." Were they called anything else by anyone else? If some newspaper said they were the acts of noble self-sacrifice by gallant freedom fighters, let's note that, and quote them at length. But whatever else we add, they were terrorist attacks, and we just misinform our readers if we don't say so clearly and distinctly. Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "terrorist" is a POV (there are muslims who support this attack), as far as I know the Wikipedia policy is to avoid using that word in such cases (see the rest of this article and Osama bin Laden article). And another thing: I don't think that everyone agree that Iraq war was a result of September 11. --Haham hanuka 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length in the recent past, and I see nothing new here. At this point your position seems to be that we must make the changes you demand if we want the tag removed. I do not accept that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This issue of the word "terrorism" has been discussed endlessly here and on similar pages. If there is something new to add, let's hear it, but to simply plop a "POV" flag on the page with the claim that "there are Muslims who support this attack," is not sufficient. That some Muslims support the attack does not transform an act of terrorism into something else. Many Muslims do not support the attack. What is the point? If one Muslim supports the attack it is therefore not "terrorism?" It is a classic act of terrorism--violence aimed at a civilian population to achieve a political or military goal. Even in a declared war it would be an act of terrorism.--Cberlet 13:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Iraq war, the intro paragraph does not say that the war was a result of 9/11 but that the war(s) along with 9/11 have affected how the US handles homeland security. On terrorism, a majority of the world called this a terrorist attack. Yes, there are a few mostly muslim groupings who say otherwise but most muslim governments called this a terrorist attack. --StuffOfInterest 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth discarding mention of "Iraq" in the intro paragraph, and instead just say:
The September 11th attacks have made United States homeland security

concerns much more prominent than they were in the previous decade.

As for referring to the attacks as terrorism, it has been discussed here ad nauseum. It's entirely appropriate to refer to 9/11 as "terrorist attacks", as 9/11 fits the Terrorism#Key_criteria. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]
I still think we should avoid it, just we did and the rest of the article. Dispute was not yet resolved. --Haham hanuka 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding New September 11th Films

I thought it might be valuable to have a mention of the controversy surrounding the new 9/11 films, which will be first shown at the Tribeca Film Festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aandrei (talk • contribs)

This main article is already too long and is just a summary of the many subarticles. I think such discussion is more suited to the subarticle, September 11, 2001 attacks in arts and literature. Right now, that article is mainly a list, and more discussion of the controversies and new films could add a lot to improve the subarticle. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External links trimmed

I have trimmed the external links section including:

  • Removed broken links
  • Removed wikilinks (don't belong in this section)
  • Moved about.com Tribeca Film Festival link to "arts and literature" subarticle
  • Consolidated 911investigations.net and september11archive.com in the main links section.
  • Swapped Yahoo! link for dmoz directory link
  • Replaced all the CNN video links with a single link to their Video archive, and removed redundant airdisaster.com link
  • Removed book links, Naudet film link (perhaps appropriate for "arts and literature" subarticle)
  • Swapped the wmv link with a link to the national geographic site.

There are a few other "photos" sites that are more personal in nature, that I think should go.

Because Wikipedia is not a link directory, we can't include all personal photo sites, and not sure if/why these two should be. Others agree/disagree with removing these two links? or disagree with any of the other changes above? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: take 'em out. JDoorjam Talk 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good work...the article needed trimming.--MONGO 03:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The two photo sites are trimmed now. The Dmoz open directory provides scores of such links, so we don't need to list them here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Good day,

Please include on the main page:

To question the validity of these outstanding claims, an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation. See 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .

I'm not trying to push any one side, since personally I find both the US gov side and the other theories somewhat fishy. But I have to say that there are big holes in both sides, things that can't be explained, and things that are just not physically possible in what the Gov says or what various critics say. What I find disturbing however, is that for a clearly controversial and widely criticized topic, the article spends dozens of pages talking about the official account, and 1 paragraph on the alternate accounts, under the heading "conspiracy" and with a link to the other article. This article should either 1- keep to the facts everyone agree on (planes crashed in the buildings, the buildings collapsed, etc) and keep everything else out, or 2- present all view points with equal footing. I personally prefer the first option, since it's always best for an encyclopedia to stick to the widely accepted facts, and I suggest it be rewritten to be much smaller and much more focus on actual facts rather than the analysis of what, how and why. Elfguy 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving equal footing for minority viewpoints. On other topics, such as Global warming, there is a minority group of people that contest it. In no way does that article give equal footing for the dissenting viewpoint. Rather, there is just *one* single line in the introduction that mentions "scientists that contest the view", with a link to a subarticle. In this article, we go beyond the *single* sentence that mentions conspiracy theories and devote a paragraph to them. That's more than adequate treatment, given the weight of evidence that supports the official account of the events. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You justified the disputed tag, by citing that there are 13 talk page archives. I think this article has existed for nearly five years, and over that time has 13 talk page archives. As a mere example, Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy has 25+ talk archive pages listed, though the article has only existed since the end of January. That article has no disputed tag. Number of talk archive pages is no justification. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there really 'big holes'? If so, then certainly they should be included. But bear in mind most of the candidates for big holes have already been refuted. Peter Grey 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Again I'm not trying to take any side, but if you can watch [224] and tell me with a straight face that there is no doubt in your mind that the Government's story is fact, then I'd be interested in hearing you say it. In my mind there just is such a huge amount of things that don't add up that I don't see how the official story can be taken without question. As for comparing this to other debated stories, Global Warming for example has 99%+ of scientists agree that it's happening, but most importantly they have tons of proof, data, scientific calculations to back it up, and critics have basically just theories. The only point that remains of uncertainty in public debates is how great the Human influence is on Global Warming, and the article shows that pretty well. This is a totally different case. Elfguy 17:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've watched it, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no evidence for any of the claims made in the video. Every assertion has been answered by experts. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The critics of global warming have *theories* in the same sense as 9/11 conpiracy theorists. Such theories lack substance and shouldn't get equal billing in the article. What about all the forensic evidence that accounts for AA77? the witnesses to the crash? the airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn [225], etc.? the cellphone calls from Barbara Olsen and other passengers reporting the hijacking? what happened to the passengers? where are they? It's not POV to give the conpiracy theories an entire paragraph, with a link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I personally think an entire paragraph is more than the theories merit. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't answer any of the points in this particular video. Take just the phone calls. The official story says people made at least 3 cellphone calls from the planes while they were still at cruising altitude. Yet it is physically impossible to make any cellphone call at 33,000ft. It's not a theory, it's a fact. Take a cellphone, go in a plane and try it yourself. You talk about the evidence on the Pentagon ground, yet don't point to any. All the evidence I have ever seen in the media are 3 items: a ring from an engine which does not fit the right kind of plane, one part of an American Airline side window which can be carried by someone, and part of a wheel, which again is too small to be from such a large plane. About the witnesses, you can hear the actual witnesses telling what they've seen to the reporters in this movie. They all say different things. Half of them actually say they saw military planes, or a missile, and half say it was a passenger plane. So again, it's easy to say experts have prooven these theories wrong, but I have yet to see anyone point out to facts that refute any of the many such videos / theories. Again I'm not saying they are necessarily right, but they sure took tons of video footage, written text and audio testimonies, while from the FBI, as far as I know (and feel free to correct me), they released no video (all the footage we have are from the media), only 4 frames from a Pentagon security camera that was pointing right at the crash site yet don't actually show any plane. Elfguy 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You make is sound like these theories were hidden from view. Instead an entire article is given to them. Rather than repeat that article here they are only discussed in brief. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Saudi flights

Someone added the following paragraph, which I have moved here to the talk page, pending further discussion:

Michael Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Fahrenheit_9/11 Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th." While private flights were still generally banned at this time, the movie does not mention that the ban on commercial flights was lifted on September 13. Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found here. For more info go to Michael Moore Fahrenheit_9/11 Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy Fahrenheit 9/11½ Sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 September 11, 2001 attacks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Since there is truth [226] to this, it might be worth including a sentence (not a whole paragraph and without the quotes) in this main article. I'm undecided as to where it could fit. Possibly at the in the "International reaction" section, with the following sentence:

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the U.S. government allowed six chartered flights to leave the United States, with mainly Saudis aboard. <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml |publisher=St. Petersburg Times |Date=2004, June 9 | title=TIA now verifies flight of Saudis |author=Heller, Jean}}</ref>

This might fit, if we also added some mention of the Saudi government reaction to the attacks. On it's own, it really doesn't fit and perhaps should just be in one of the subarticles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"terrorist" POV

As far as I know Wikipedia policy is to avoid using this word here:

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 [1] or September 11th) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America"

I think we should drop this word. If you look at the name of the article ("September 11, 2001 attacks" not "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks") and on the page (excluding this sentence) you will see that this sentence conisdered POV by Wikipeida policy. --Haham hanuka 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before, as recently as a few days ago. The consensus is to keep "terrorism." Are there any new arguments?--Cberlet 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am on the fence on this one, but I feel it is an important discussion and the use of the word terrorist needs to be addressed here on the Talk page before we remove the Disputed tag. Haham hanuka can you please provide a link to the reference citing the specific Wikipedia policy you reference? Digiterata 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's "Terrorism" article:
  • "The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence" or the threat of violence, and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare. "Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard for human life.""
Does any of the above not fit what happened? Of course they were terrorist attacks and should be described as such (and are). Not sure what the purpose of claiming otherwise would even be. Mad Jack O'Lantern 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I buy that argument. I vote in favour of keeping the word terrorism. By the definition above, the term is appropriate. Digiterata 08:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare the intro of this article to: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, ETA, Irish Republican Army and etc. - those articles represent de facto "terror" policy on Wikipedia. --Haham hanuka 11:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the September 11th attacks weren't terrorist attacks then, A. What exactly were they? and B. What example would be a terrorist attack? Mad Jack O'Lantern 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
see: 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, Netanya suicide attack, Dolphinarium massacre --Haham hanuka 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
And how are those any more terrorist attacks than this one? Again, I've shown you Wikipedia's definition of terrorism. The attacks fit it exactly, and they've been described as terrorist by the majority of sources. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point. Ive provided those links in order to show you the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. If in those articles they don't call the attack "terror", why should we can 9/11 attacks "terrorist attacks"? --Haham hanuka 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the second article - Netanya - refers to them as "terror attacks". Just because those two other articles didn't explicitly mention terrorism - doesn't mean we shouldn't. The following websites label them as "terrorist" attacks [227][228][229][230]Cnn's "CHRONOLOGY OF TERRORR"[231][232][233][234]. Obviously, these are just the firs Google mentions, and there are thousands more. Can you find a non-POV source that refers to them as anything other than terrorist attacks? Or such a source that explicitly states that they were not terrorist attacks? I don't even understand the point of this debate. It's equal to going to the child molesters category and removing "child molester" from the article of every person listed. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jack, I agree that this attack corresponds with our own definition of terrorism. It would be absurd if we would suggest that our own definition bears no importance. What would that say about Wikipedia? Also, I have seen articles that include terrorism or not, but I did not see a Wikipedia policy on this matter. I suspect that people get wary of the discussions and drop the definition eventually. I can understand that. Dropping terrorism in border cases would actually foster neutrality. This, however, is not a border case. I admire your insistence on safeguarding clear npov in this article. Regards, gidonb 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, new to the forum. I know that you are disputing the word terrorist and whether it should be included. The September 11th attacks were another in the long line of Islamic Fundamenalist attacks, such as the Achille Lauro, Munich 1972, the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi US Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. These were terrorist acts, and September 11th is one more in the pile. Time to end the debate, we all these were terrorists, planning with a sophisticated network of communications to attack and cause havoc to this nation. They succeeded. The fact that we want to pull the wool over our own eyes, and forget 5 years after the event of what has happened is sickening. ~Tak178

Conspiracy & POV

I removed the POV flag because it represents a tiny minority viewpoint that favors a variety of conspiracy theories (even if the proponents do not consider themselves to do so) and because many discussions over many months has repeatedly reached a consensus that a small paragraph and links to the conspiracy pages are the appropriate solution.--Cberlet 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not so much that it's PoV, but more of a story that is being disputed by a lot of people. To say it's a small minority seems misleading when looking at the amount of talk pages. Regardless, see the section above titled 'conspiracy theories' as to why some people may question not only the official story but why it takes 99% of the article space here. The disputed tag fits perfectly this article, where there's several credible opposing stories. Elfguy 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Disputed tag is more appropriate than POV. The reason I originally added the POV tag is that I believe there are a number of specific factual ommissions from the current article that have been excluded primarily because they discredit the official accounts of events on 9/11. As a first step towards addressing this issue, I have compiled a list of specific facts on my own Talk page drawing heavily from the 9/11 Attacks-The Facts and Nothing But. Could you please take a look? My plan is to solicit input from the community, specifically targetting users who have reverted my edits, and ask them to comment. My hope is that we can use this as a tool to highlight my concerns. I also fully expect these facts to be ripped apart. That's healthy, I think.
I won't add back the POV tag until I can test this approach to see if it yields some results, but I reserve the right to add it back if stalls. If I do add it back, I think it is only fair that anyone who removes the tag a second time explain their reasoning on the Talk page, and if possible an Admin should be the one to remove it. I welcome your feedback Digiterata 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Per my notes above, I agreed that the POV tag was inappropriate. However, I stand by my assertion that the Factual Accuracy of this article is in dispute. Specifically, there are a number of factual ommissions that have been excluded primarily because they discredit the official accounts of events on 9/11. Some (not all) of these facts are relevant and need to be addressed in the main article. I don't see how JPGordan can argue that the facts aren't in dispute, when in fact they are. Let's not turn this into an edit war. I am confident we can work this out on talk. I'm not averse to removing the tag, as long as my concerns can be debated here on Talk first. Digiterata 17:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Above, Elfguy talks about 99% of scientists that believe in global warming. I'm not sure it's as high as 99% [citation needed], but agree that it's an overwhelming majority. In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are some Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. There I see two professors (David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones) listed, and the others are various non-academic who don't all necessarily subscribe to LIHOP or MIHOP (e.g. Kristin Breitweiser fits in the "The Incompetence Theory" categorization (based on the linked reference)). So, there are two professors that "question" 9/11 out of 618,000 full-time faculty in the United States [235]. That would amount to .0003236% that may subscribe to LIHOP or MIHOP and %99.9996764 that subscribe to the "official story", as told by the 9/11 commission. Now, please take a look at WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. It says "any mention (of pseudoscience) should be proportional to the rest of the article". Given the extreme tiny minority, if anything an entire paragraph overrepresents the conspiracy theories, and in no way does the article violate NPOV. A paragraph is much more than 0.0003236% of the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's easy to find numbers:

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals [236]

Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes, No 11% 1201 votes [237]

Elfguy 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Zogby poll has nothing to do with conspiracy theories--it's about the U.S. Government having failed to act to prevent 9/11. The CNN poll is an unscientific web poll "This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. " --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And why I said it was easy to find numbers, in response to the comment above. The fact remains that alternative theories are valid, alternative theories, and I still believe having them confined to a tiny paragraph with a link, under the title "conspiracy", is wrong, just as the removal of the disputed tag, since this is clearly disputed and by more than a couple of lunatics. Elfguy 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand. The numbers you posted are from an unscientific web poll and another poll that has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The numbers Kmf posted are cited facts about the number of academics who are involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Trying to somehow conflate them by saying "It's easy to find numbers" is just plain disingenuous. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No it's not, because he says only 2 professors believe the alternate theories, as in only 2 credible people believe them and everyone else is non credible people, not mentioning the fact that so many credible people did say facts that support the alternate theories, from the fire fighters saying they were sure they heard explosions, radio transmissions that said the fires in the tower was almost out and they could bring in more people, the architects saying there is no possible way the towers could have collapsed because of fire, the sources at Pratt and Whitney saying the pictured pieces at the Pentagon was not from a Boieng jet, and so on. I'm just saying if you want to bring numbers into a discussion, and those numbers are completely on your side, then they should tell the full story, else present all the numbers. Elfguy 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he didn't say anything about anyone except professors. If you cite some of these mysterious experts you've mentioned, then perhaps you'll have a better case for insterting the material into the article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the claims by Elfguy have been convincingly refuted by the majority of reputable published sources. This entire discussion belongs on the conspiracy page. How many times do we have to go through this?--Cberlet 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not a conspiracist on this, but titling the section "Conspiracy Theories" is a blatant POV violation. If you are going to call them "theories", then you must call everything else a theory. It should be changed to "Conspiracies surrounding the attacks" or something like this. Otherwise, this is a POV violation. Bsd987 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been debated endlessly, and voted on at least twice. Sorry.--Cberlet 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
While it may have been debated extensively, a consensus was never reached. The beauty of Wikipedia is that is is constantly evolving and improving. A simple check on the Wikipedia page for Conspiracy Theory shows that the term indicates connotations of folklore and urban legend. The article also describes the term as prejudicial and pejorative. If that isn't POV what is? And please don't be sorry, this debate isn't over. Digiterata 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is pov to label it with a pejorative title. --Striver 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Not surprising given that you were on the losing end of several debates.--Cberlet 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you disagree with Striver's opinion, but I don't see how comments like this add to value to the discussion. I'm sure Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks. Please keep the discussion civil. This sort of trolling behaviour doesn't serve anyone. Digiterata 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is an accurate statement of fact, readily documented by reviewing the contributions of Striver (and a few other editors) over many months. There are a tiny handful of pro-conspiracy editors who raise the same issues over and over, have them discussed at length, lose the debate, wait a few weeks, and then start the process over again. This is not collaborative consensus-building. It is important to place this discussion in the proper context of a tiny group of editors who refuse to abide by majority decisions and votes. Stating this fact is not a personal attack--it is a legitimate criticism of an abuse of group process. --Cberlet 13:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I won't add back the POV tag until I can test this approach to see if it yields some results, but I reserve the right to add it back if stalls. If I do add it back, I think it is only fair that anyone who removes the tag a second time explain their reasoning on the Talk page, and if possible an Admin should be the one to remove it. -- OK. I'm removing it, I agree completely with Cberlet, and I'm an admin, not that it makes any difference whatsoever in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I too am in complete agreement with Cberlet. This is not a reflection on Striver, but the manner of which this is handled...and it really doesn't have much to do with concensus...all editors to articles such as this should take the following attitude about this article and those related to it...it isn't our fault if they were misinformed from some website that they find on the web, however, it is our fault if that misinformation was attained after reading this website.--MONGO 12:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you agree with cberlet that the title Conspiracy Theories is not pejorative? If so, please take the initiative to modify the definition on said Wikipedia page. The comments above specifically addressed the issue of a prejudicial and pejorative title reflecting a clear POV bias. --Digiterata 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada and the War on Terrorism

Canada's waging its own War on Terrorism, Operation Apollo in Afghanistan. Should my country be added under the "Primary participants" or "Other important figures"?

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a pretty misleading statement. Canada refused to go along with the US to invade Iraq because the evidence was not strong enough, the UN and other international bodies didn't support it, and the majority of canadians were against. The Afghanistan military mission is currently the only mission Canada is participating in any big numbers, and it's a UN lead mission of dozens of nations, and it's a peacekeeping mission alongside the local government. So no, it shouldn't. Elfguy 16:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of participants you are referring to is actually part of the {{War on Terrorism}} template that is transcluded at the end of this article. The place to raise your question is Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism, which I notice you have done. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Official Account

The debate over the neutrality of this article and specifically the ommission of facts that do not correspond to the official account of events has been ongoing for sometime. As a compromise, I would like to propose that a short section be added that includes reference to the specific hard facts that are the basis of the criticism. This section should be separate from Conspiracy Theories, and should focus on specific facts that have been previously excluded (see The Facts and Nothing But). The section should only include indisputable facts, not conjecture or analysis of the implications. I'm open to the specific wording of this section, maintaining a high standard for verifiability and accuracy, and discussions about the relevance of specific facts. However, completely excluding this evidence is a blatant NPOV violation.

Examples:

  • All three towers fell at close to free-falls speeds in accordance with Newtonian gravity.
  • There is convincing evidence of insider trading in the WTC regarding the stocks of commercial airlines and aircraft manufacturers involved in the event; both short-selling and put options. In the days preceding 9/11 an unprecedented spike in short-sales and put options exceeded the statistical norm by, at peak, by a factor of eleven. This information was passed to the FBI and no investigations are underway or planned regarding this information.
  • According to multiple credible accounts molten steel was found in the basement of all three felled WTC buildings and was still red hot weeks after the event. (Source: Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)
  • By all accounts the burning point of Jet Fuel is much too low to cause steel to melt and no explanation of these facts are included in the official accounts.
  • Official accounts detail a number of calls made by passengers of the planes, some at altitudes as high as cruising altitude of 31,000 feet and most were above 10,000 feet.
  • Numerous experts agree that is is highly unlikely if not impossible for cell phones to work above 8,000 feet given the technology available in late 2001.

I put forward these examples, for the purpose of discussion. If I am mistaken in calling them facts, please feel free to comment. Digiterata 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Striver 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the issue needs to be presented -- briefly. Some are not quite "facts" yet though

  1. give times vs free fall times
  2. "convincing evidence" needs a source other than site dedicated to this scenario
  3. "multiple credible accounts" also needs source others can check - preferably online - red hot METAL weeks after the event should be easy to document
  4. it was not necessary that the steel melt to have collapse
  5. plane was off radar & could have been below 10,000 feet for quite a while
  6. Counterpoints to this scenario need to be rpesented too. Though it resembled free-fall controlled demo, there were significant differences --JimWae 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done some further digging, but haven't had a ton of luck finding credible references that don't come from either the conspiracy theory advocates or the debunkers. Both sides are biased, so my preference is to use independant data if possible - harder than it looks.
  1. Building collapse vs. free fall times (in the range of 11-13 seconds for the twin towers, 6-7 sec for WTC7 - need some help to nail down an observable number we can all live with. Any volunteers?
  2. Convincing evidence should cite independant sources, agreed. Harder than it looks though - only those who care one way or another tend to go to the trouble to compilee this info and post it. This applies to both the government's account as well as it's detractors.
  3. No molten steel isn't necessary to explain the collapse, but molten steel was observed by multiple parties and does not fit the explanation of events. Jet Fuel and office furnishings cannot cause steel to melt. What caused the molten metal that lasted days, weeks, or months after the event? Here's a source from Stephen E. Jones, it includes pictures of molten steel and a short video of firefighters describing the still red-hot steel 6 weeks after the event. The source is biased, but the video footage is compelling [238]
  4. Plane altitude is relevant and difficult to ascertain. If the planes were in fact below 10,000 feet for each and every cell phone call that would explain the calls. However, if as is cited in the conspiracy claim sites, there were calls made on cell (not satellite) phones at cruising altitude, then the scepticism is justified. Can anyone provide references other than the conspiracy sites? I want to keep this credible if possible.
  5. Point-counterpoint would be an excellent way of presenting the facts, but suggest we focus on identifying verifiable facts at issue first. --Digiterata 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts out of context, even correct ones, would probably violate WP:NPOV, especially engineering details that lay people would easily misinterpret. Some of the facts and the questionable conclusions made from them are covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but perhaps a better idea might be to have an article dedicated to these sorts of points and providing the explanations or counter-arguments. And who knows, there may well be some valid objective criticism out there. Peter Grey 00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Phone Calls

Regarding telephone calls, here are a couple of references with which you may want to familiarize yourself: satellite phone and How to Use a Phone on an Airplane. (What, no article on airphone? ...rolls up sleeves...) Weregerbil 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally found it: Air-ground radiotelephone service. Could be expanded... Weregerbil 12:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
While at least two of the calls were made using Airphones (specifically by the flight attendants) most of the calls, it has always been claimed by official sources, came from regular GSM and/or CDMA cellular telephones. It is these specific air-ground calls which are of concern. --Digiterata 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source that verifies high altitude cell phone calls? I've read about brief cell phone calls during the final minutes of flights (i.e. low altitude) — brief as would be expected when cell towers fail hand-off. Some source that would be in a position to really know the type of the phone, is not repeating rumours, and is deliberately making a distinction between cell phones, satellite phones, and airphones? Weregerbil 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The official 9/11 Commission report includes references to multiple calls made specifically from cell phones throughout the flights. As for the altitude question, I've seen independant verifiable experiments made from a Cessna up to 12,000 feet which validates the likelihood of calls getting through from various altitudes. As for the actual altitudes of the 9/11 airplanes, no I haven't found anything. Unless someone can find verifiable data to confirm the altitude of the flights at various points, I'll have to concede this issue. I have no problem doing that, if necessary. --Digiterata 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The only reference to cell phone calls from the planes I can find in the commission report is page 12: Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls ...took place until the end of the flight... Which could be high altitude airphone calls, then cell phone calls as the plane descended and brief cell connections became possible. Are there other mentions of cell phone calls in the report? Weregerbil 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A specific example is the first call from Peter Hanson to his father Lee from flight UAL175 placed at 8:52am (Source: 9/11 Commission Report [239], search for 'Hanson') This call is of interest because the official timeline specifies that the plane left the ground at Logan by 8:14am, reached cruising altitude of 31,000ft by 8:33am and maintained that altitude until at least 8:51am 'when it deviated from it's assigned altitude.' The 9/11 Commission report doesn't distinguish between cell and airphone in this case, but multiple media accounts specifically indicate that it was a cell phone. [240] [241][242] [243] I'm just saying... --Digiterata 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
First article: is the person saying "cell phone" making a conscious effort to distinguish between types or just assuming "since he wasn't home must have been a cell phone". Second and third stories: "moments before the plane hit", i.e. low altitude which allows intermittent connections. Fourth story (call from lavatory): wireless airphone handset, satellite phone, low altitude? None seem to have a person deliberately making a distinction between cell phones, satellite phones, and airphones, and showing a high altitude cell connection. All it takes for newspapers to say "cell phone" is a single newswire editor who assumes "must have been a cell phone" without thinking. Weregerbil 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Applying Occam's razor, one media reference to cell phones could easily be a mistake, four mistakes by four different mainstream accounts - that's harder to believe. You win, you must be right . The references I cited are all wrong and the official 9/11 report which doesn't specify one way or the other must be interpreted to mean that all calls were placed from air phones not cell phones. I'm not sure what it would take for you to agree, but it's clear that my meagre attempts are insufficient. If there is any reasonable way for me to convince you please advise, otherwise I'll save my energy. --Digiterata 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Those four references are not necessarily wrong at all! Two are fairly clearly low altitude calls and can easily be cell phone calls. The fourth one does not claim a cell phone was used in the lavatory; all it rules out is an airphone with a (short) wire. Olson called from a lavatory while "flying over houses", which you probably wouldn't say if you were 10 km up, so a cell phone is quite possible. In the first one note that Hanson made a second call after the plane had deviated from its course, and that is the one referred to as "cell phone call" in the newspaper article, not the first call (Hanson expresses the possibility of dying in the second call, not the first one). The second call "ended abruptly" which is what happens with low altitude cell phone connections when tower handoff fails. None of those articles really claim high altitude cell phone calls (much less deliberately and verifiaby knowing the phone type.) Weregerbil 18:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being to rash earlier. Re: the references above, you are correct about 2 and 3 not likely not referring to the 8:52am call. However 1 clearly refers to this call which would have been made at 31,000 feet. It is possible that they were mistaken, however no retraction was ever made, and as a credible news source my tendancy is to believe that it is more likely that they verified their facts. The really interesting point is in 4, which specifically notes that Each call was initially reported as coming from a cellphone. Later, when skepticism reared its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that $10-a-minute Airfones were involved. I'm not sure if this getting us any further. We seem to be debating angels on the head of a pin. The original point was not to decide which version is true, only to point to specific concerns e.g. "Critics of the official accounts point to examples such as ..." "...while others counter that this reasoning is flawed because ..."
Re which call article 1 above discusses ("Don't worry... Oh my God"): see the Commission report page 8. Or the article; it also tells the call ended, Lee Hanson looked at the television, and saw why the call was cut. That did not happen at 31,000 feet. I don't know about the altitude during the first call; the plane had started deviating slightly earlier. The "economical" cruising speed of a 757 is 850 km/h or 14 km/minute, so a drop to a cell phone capable altitude from 9.5 km in one minute (8:51 to 8:52, and assuming everyone's watches were synchronized) would probably be steepish but not an impossible descent. Perhaps one that a passenger would describe "a strange move" in a phone call. Weregerbil 20:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Question: Are you sure you're not trying really hard to make the facts fit your understanding of events, instead of looking at the data objectively and drawing the most reasonable conclusions? First, I didn't bring this up earlier because I didn't see any evidence of the measured velocity of the plane, but since you mention it ... If the plane was in fact travelling at 850km/h then it is impossible that any cell phone would have worked. Cell phones are designed to switch between towers at car velocities not plane velocities. It is a proven fact that they cannot operate at over 450mph (possibly lower) [244]. Second, if the plane were travelling at 850kph straight down as you suggest, every single passenger's head would explode! (Yes, even the super-human Al Quaeda terrorist heads) Occam's razor again. If the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, it stands to reason that the simplest explanation is that Cellular telephones do not work on commercial airplanes at least not with the technology available in September 2001. You're determined, I'll grant you that. --Digiterata 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What would any "discrepancy" about the phone calls demonstrate? That the entire event was staged or faked? ... or, that sometimes reports are erroneous? Which is more reasonable? --JimWae 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. I want to clarify my position. I don't wish to taint this article with outlandish theories suggesting the event was staged or anything of the sort. I simply hope we can modify the article to reflect the fact that there are critics who question the official account and a couple of high-level points upon which many of the conspiracy theorists base their accusations. However, sometimes reports ARE erroneous and if so its not up to us to brush concerns under a rug. I don't know whether that is in fact the case here. I just think it needs to be addressed.
I propose wording along the lines of Critics of the official account argue that cellular telephone calls were not possible from commercial airlines at the time of the attacks. Proponents respond that most calls were made at altitudes significantly lower than standard cruising altitude and did suffer from repeated dropped calls. Or something along those lines. --Digiterata 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories which takes such ideas and explains them in more depth than can be in the main article. The main article uses summary style to summarize the theories. Thus, we can't include every specific detail of the theories. We take the same summary style approach to all the other sections, and use {{main}} links to the subarticles. Due to size constraints, we can't possibly include all details relating to 9/11 in this main article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Re: style I can't argue, the article is pretty long already. My only concern is that the Conspiracy Theories page is filled with a lot of junk science and wild speculation. Perhaps that really is the appropriate place for these items - I just wish there was an alternative. Cathal made a suggestion above under [Reasoned Debate about what should and shouldn't be included] It might make sense to put these issues there. --Digiterata 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
<-- shift left
Re your question: yes, I do try to look at data. That is why I got involved in this thread with the question about verified high altitude cell phone calls. Re travelling straight down: I never suggested that. To descend from 9.5 km to, say, 3 km in one minute (if it was one minute, see "synchronized watches") at 14 km/min does not involve "straight down". Change in air pressure inside a pressurized aircraft does not cause heads to explode any more than divers' heads explode or implode when they encounter much greater pressure differences (see Dysbarism). Re cellular telephones not working: the page you cite shows some calls working; the velocity of the planes after descent is not high altitude cruising speed; four planes with probably a number of people hitting redial = a handful of short calls get through. The "450 mph" figure refers to base station handoff, i.e. calls can succeed but get cut off when going out of range of the base station (which is what happened). Other than handoff the base station cares little about your velocity. Even at 850 km/h a base station gives you up to five minutes of talk time (35 km range times two), that's countryside, average cells will give you only a minute or two. Re Occam's razor: I think the simplest explanation I have seen so far that fits all verifiable facts about the calls is airphone and a few short low altitude cell phone calls. I think "airphone" is simpler than planes getting whisked off to secret airbases or whatnot. Please do show evidence that doesn't fit that, I'm interested in seeing it! Weregerbil 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I enjoy data-driven analysis as well. RE: Head's exploding, apologies, that wasn't data driven. I just know that if I fell almost 10km in under a minute the rapid pressure differential would be pretty nasty, even in a pressurized aircraft. Notice how your ears pop on landing even though the cabin is pressurized? I haven't had a chance to look into your points above, but they do seem reasonable. My hypothesis is that there was a cover-up, but not a grand conspiracy or anything. I simply think there were some details of the events that the government suspected would make them look bad and so they played around with the truth a bit. You'll notice that there were a ton of references to call place from cell phones up until Qualcom's announcement of the PicoCell plane based CDMA tranceiver - then quite abruptly the story changes to Airphones. I admit I'm a bit skeptical of any administration that doesn't believe in evolution or global warming, specifically when it comes to issues of science and reason. Please see my response above to JimWae. I don't want to add to conspiracy claims, just report on the critics' criticisms. --Digiterata 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple more items for review, purely to satisfy the intellectually curious and rational minds out there. There is a well-documented report of a 30 minute cell phone call placed from the bathroom of flight 93 [245] [246] This call would have been handed off between towers at least once, possibly more. The duration and timing of the call lead me to beleive that there is a good chance that at least some of that call would have to have been placed at or near cruising altitude of 31,000ft, which is completely impossible. I don't have time to research the timeline as I'm about to jump on a plane myself, but the facts are all available in the official 9/11 Commission's report. Yours to discover, or not. --Digiterata 15:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I couldn't help myself - had to look into it further. Here's what I found (Timeline from the 9/11 Commission Final Report) 8:42 Flight 93 departs Newark, 9:28am altitude is confirmed to be 35,000ft, 9:29-9:32 Hijacker claiming to be captain makes announcement from cockpit, Cell Phone calls begin (see above re: 30 minute Glick Call), 9:57am Passenger assualt on cockpit begins ("Roll It"), 10:02am ("Pull it Down, Allah is the greatest..."). Flight 93 crashes into ground at 580mph.
So a couple of important points here: The Jeremy Glick call to his wife Lyzbeth was clearly referenced by all accounts as a cell phone call. It was clearly referenced to last 30 minutes, of which at least 20 minutes were recorded by the FBI after Lyzbeth contacted authorities on a separate line. By the official timeline above it sure looks like there is only one possible 30 minute window during which the call could have been placed. By official accounts the plane was at 35,000ft 1-4 minutes before the first call. The official reports make no reference to a sudden drop to 8,000-10,000 feet in those 4 minutes (which would be required for cell phones to work). As has been discussed earlier Cellular telephones DO NOT work at 35,000ft (or anywhere close to that height.) For a 30 minute uninterrupted cell phone call to work at commercial aircraft velocities, there would have to be at least one (if not more) handoffs between cell towers. Cell tower handoffs do not work at speeds in excess of 450mph (see above). Based on the above, I call bullshit on the official story of magical 30 minute cellphone calls from 35,000feet at cruising velocity.
Having said all that, I don't propose that we add anything damning to this article. I do think I've established enough justification to add a line or two that reads something like, Critics of the official account argue that cellular telephone calls were not possible from commercial airlines at the time of the attacks. Proponents respond that most calls were made at altitudes significantly lower than standard cruising altitude and did suffer from repeated dropped calls.
Am I really being that unreasonable? Given the evidence I've cited, a tiny weasel word NPOV addition seems like a no-brainer. If we can't agree on this minor point, then I don't know if I hold much hope for Wikipedia and NPOV. --Digiterata 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As to the Glick call, a quick googling finds this[247]:
Mr. Glick told his wife to take care of Emmy, their daughter, and "have a good life." He was going to leave the air phone off the hook, he said, and asked her to stay on the line while the group of passengers tried to implement their takeover.
(emphasis mine.) Weregerbil 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So the Washington Post, CNN, the FBI, Lyzbeth Glick, and the 9/11 Commission were all mistaken, but the Dallas Morning News somehow got it right? I don't buy it and I've seen your ability to do your own analysis, deep down I don't think you buy it either. That's why you keep doing your own research.
There are two original sources regarding this call:
1. Lyzbeth Glick's interview with the FBI shortly after the events
2. The original 20 minute recording held by the FBI.
That's the source for all the references.
Lyzbeth specifically mentions a cell phone. My guess is that as the wife of a Technology Sales rep she probably had access to caller ID which is how she determined it was her husband's cell. Either that or he mentioned it during their 30 minute call. Help me out here. I provided multiple highly credible sources that state cell phone, you provided one lesser known source that said airphone. Sure it's possible that it was in fact an airphone, but on the balance of probabilities if you were a betting man, which one would you choose? I'm starting to doubt whether or not it's worth my energy to pursue this further. Doesn't seem like anything I say can get you to re-consider. I'm ready to concede - I don't have the energy to fight anymore. --Digiterata 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The DMN article contains a DIRECT QUOTE from Mr Glick saying he was on an air phone. You can verify with the transcripts if you care to. What do you want, for him to wake from the dead and tell you personally?--Mmx1 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A direct quote would be, "I will leave the airphone..."' not "he will leave the airphone." Do you really believe the DMN had better sources than the ones I've cited? It's become abundantly clear to me that there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Facts that don't support your viewpoint are unwelcome on this page. I call that POV bias and Factual Dispute, but I'm sure you will spin it by claiming that I'm a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist with 3 heads and a deep seated love of terrorists. --Digiterata 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have links to Lyzbeth Glick's quote (not second- and third hand guessing) and the 9/11 commission saying it was a cell phone? Also please note you may be mixing two different calls when you reference these two above: [248] [249]. One is the Glick call (not from a bathroom, to his wife, long call), the other is from a bathroom (short call to 911, "minutes before crashed", plane was known to be at low altitude since low altitude vs. high speed alarm was heard in the background). Weregerbil 19:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stock Market

On the point of short-selling and put option activity suggesting insider-trading on American Airlines, United, and Boeing prior to the attacks, does anyone have an issue with adding a line or two to the article? --Digiterata 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. These theories never discuss all deviations in all stocks before the crash. Since the inclusion of some movements in some related stocks that went down would create an indiscriminate suggestion that 9-11 related companies overall dropped before the attacks (and also that there is some relationship with the attacks -I will get to that later), it does not belong here. It is a purposefully wrong suggestion because when some stocks go down others go up (unless the markets crash). These are very similar companies in the same market and thus United and American Airlines may very well move together (and Boeing may move with them). It is extremely likely that the stocks of many 9/11-hit companies went up, probably also with no connection. It just does not got mentioned, as the conspiracy theories start with the target and then collect some eclectic facts that could be explained in a way to support them and try to argue the rest. Ironically, the point of this article (and even talk page) is also not to discuss all stock deviations in the US or the World before 9/11. Rather, since these are bits and pieces of information with no clear connection to the 9/11 attack that get floated in conspiracy theories, it is something for the conspiracy page to discuss. gidonb 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I object as well. The claim that options traders had foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 attacks is discussed in the conspiracy theories article. It does not need to be discussed here as each options trade was explained to have an origin in other than foreknowledge of the attacks. There was suspicion immediately after the trading records were examined and it merited investigation, but after investigation no connection was found. patsw 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, apologies for not responding earlier. See above, I had my hands full with Cell phones and exploding terrorist heads :)
On the issue of mysterious short-selling activity, the point here is that this was topical enough for the mainstream media to report on after the attacks. Specifically, a spike of 1100% in the days running up to 9/11 in bets that three companies whos stock prices would most definitely suffer from such an attack was considered suspicious. The fact is, it is impossible to sell stock short or purchase put options without disclosing ones identity, per SEC regulations. If these trades were investigated and nothing of importance was found, then let's report that fact. To eliminate any reference to these events, however is remeniscent of Orwell's 1984. The Ministry of Truth and all that. The fact is, it could have been Al Quaeda who placed these trades through dummy corporations to fund their terrorist activities. I don't know. I do know that excluding this part of the history of 9/11 seems like revisionist history. You can't call an article NPOV if it excludes facts just because they don't fit neatly into a mainstream POV. I understand how sensitive this topic is, but can we please put the principles of Wikipedia ahead of our own personal biases?
I propose wording along the lines of: In the days leading up to the attacks, a number of suspicious trades were placed against United and American Airlines as well as Boeing. These trades resulted in a significant increase in short-selling and put option activity (bets that the price would fall) Media reports initially indicated that these trades indicated possible foreknowledge of the attacks. However, on further investigation no connection was found. --Digiterata 22:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to the proposed wording.
If we were to list every suspicion that acquired a brief media life -- and I do not dispute the options trade were briefly considered suspicious -- we wouldn't have room for facts in the article. Digiterta overstates the suspicion — not that the trades themselves indicated foreknowledge — but that the trades themselves merited an investigation to determine if they were made with foreknowledge.
  1. No, the fact is al-Qaeda could not have made those trades through dummy corporations.
  2. No, this particular suspicion is properly discussed in the conspiracies article. patsw 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It is silly to state assumptions and theories as fact simply because the source of the assumptions and theories is credible. When the source is the government which was attacked it is even sillier to do so. I will try to address the most obvious infractions. Neutralizer 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Below is an edited version of the intro recently added by Marielleh I've posted it here on Talk because I thought it was quite good for its concise style and NPOV perspective. The article is getting quite verbose and I thought this was quite an improvement. It was recently reverted by another user and I wanted others to see it and comment before it was lost in the revision history. If anyone finds value in this version of the intro, please feel free to move it back to the article.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 [1] or September 11th) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed approximately 3000 people and destroyed or damaged a number of buildings.

The attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, who hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, crashing three into buildings. Two planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York City, and within two hours both towers collapsed. A third hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a rural field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The jet fuel in the planes ignited immediately and burned long enough to cause the contents of the buildings to combust. [250]

Soon after the attacks, the United States accused al-Queda, a fundamentalist islamist organization, for the event. The president George W. Bush launched "War on Terrorism" in response to the attacks, including invasion of Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq. Domestically, the United States goverment created Department of Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act and generally adopted terrorism as the central theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs)

Where was the discussion of what was wrong with the introduction, and the reason given for making this type of edit? patsw 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The last time I checked (it's gone now) there was an automated tag stating that this article may be longer than it could be. IMHO the introduction should be clean and concise and NPOV. The rest of the article is for fleshing out the full story, but the intro should be, well an intro. I noticed the changes posted by Marielleh and thought they were quite good. When they were quickly reverted without any comment on the subject line or talk, I thought it would be appropriate to post the edit here to make sure others saw it and were able to comment. My $0.02 --Digiterata 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It sucks. Ask for consensus before making edits to the intro. E.g. what's the point of this? "The jet fuel in the planes ignited immediately and burned long enough to cause the contents of the buildings to combust. " So the highlights of the day - 4 hijackings, 3000 deaths, two major building collapses, and oh yea, a bunch of papers burned. Weasel wording the affiliations of the hijackers and removing the casualties seems rather odd to me, too. --Mmx1 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

disputed

I think we need to either agree that people hold different viewpoints, as seems pretty obvious by the many talk pages over the years, and present all viewpoints in the article, or at least keep the article solely about the FACTS and not the opinions of one side. Facts are things like planes crashed into towers, towers collapsed, x number of people are dead, etc. Opinions are things like the hijackers were with Al-Qaeda, the buildings collapsed solely because of a few fires, the Pentagon had a passenger plane crash into it (also an opinion unless you hold the super secret video proving it), and so on. Until we've reached such a consensus, the disputed tag should remain. Elfguy 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These "difference viewpoints" are covered in September 11, 2001 attacks#Conspiracy theories, and in the main article 9/11 conspiracy theories (and all it's spin-off articles). -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not at all the point. The point is that, for example, according to this article's intro they are part of Al-Qaeda. How about adding 'according to the commission report' and such? Elfguy 17:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The viewpoints do not extend to "factual disagreements" as the tag indicates. The established facts of the scientific and engineering community are presented here. The 9-11 commission is an authority; what evidence to the contrary do you have?--Mmx1 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is factual proof that the 9/11 commission made mistakes, some of which are presented in Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. As for the engineering community? How about the architects behind the towers saying they didn't believe fire could bring the building down? (dont have source atm will add it later) Or the fact that in recent history only 3 skyscrapers have ever fallen down due to fires: WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7... Elfguy 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have kept the Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report link, but placed in the appropriate section that briefly summarizes the 9/11 commission topic. Further discussion about the Collapse of the World Trade Center are covered in that article. As for Al-Qaeda responsibility, I have added another footnote to Bin Laden's own admission of responsibility. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Again some dispute that: [251] Elfguy 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We've explained this before, but I don't mind reminding newcomers: We don't write "the 9/11 Commission claims..." before everything in the article such as the affiliation of the hijackers. The reason is that that 9/11 Commission had the responsibility, competence, and resources to investigate the terrorist attacks under the authority of the United States government. In the Wikipedia schemata of presenting information it is far beyond "opinion" and "claim". You might ask "Does the government lie?" or "Could the government coerce hundreds or thousands of people to maintain a lie from 2001 to the present", and that is why the rer is a separate 9/11 conspiracy theories article to discuss just that possibility. patsw 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Compare this article so some best practice examples or any journalistic standard and you'll clearly see a clear difference between the wording used here and proper NPOV style. Read the NPOV policy again. It clearly recommends wording closer to: "according to x, y is true." You can't say things like "Al Quaeda crashed a plane into the pentagon to punish US infidels." (Sorry, Trolling - my bad) Re: the point above, fine, don't include it in every sentence, but it needs to be included at least once.
The appropriate wording would be something like, "According to official sources, the attacks on 9/11 were planned and orchestrated by a terrorist organization known as Al Quaeda" or something to that effect. Take a step back and put the integrity of Wikipedia ahead of personal opinion. It is abundantly clear to me that the Factual Accuracy of this article is highly disputed. Looking back at a couple years of history of this article, it is obvious that this dispute has been ongoing and has never been resolved. My vote is that the tag should stay. --Digiterata 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia does not function via a templated writing style. You cannot write "According to physics experts, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, or simply relativity, refers specifically to two theories: special relativity and general relativity. As commonly regarded by physics professors, As a field of study, relativity also includes metric theories of gravitation in which special relativity applies locally." etc. That's what references are for. Well-established facts by authorities can be presented without direct attribution and your fringe challenges do not warrant sufficient basis to require attribution. --Mmx1 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the point, it's not "fringe challenges". While the alternate theories don't have the "mainstream" backing that the official story has, that's why they are alternate, and not mainstream. I'm not asking for the article to focus mainly on those, because they are far from proven, but until there are some direct proof backing the official story, the important inacuracies explained, and most of the alternate issues disproven, I think it's perfectly normal that a sizable minority will dispute it, and this article should reflect that. The simple fact is that if this view was so obvious and undisputed, there would not even be a criticism article, or that article would have a point by point rebutal, yet dozens of issues remain. Elfguy 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Digiterata: Talking about a "journalistic standard" here misses the entire point of Wikipedia. This is not a newspaper article, it is an eneyclopedia article. The standard of balance is very different from that of journalism.
Elfguy:There is plenty of proof (complete with mathmatical models that end in Q.E.D) for the "official story". It's not as if people are just making things up and putting them into the article--everything is cited with multiple trusted sources. Here are 300 pages of technical specs detailing every second of how the towers collapsed. This is a shorter and more technical document that even addresses some conspiracy theorists' claims. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I read the second one and all they do is speculate as to what could have happened that would follow the original story and that is physically possible from an engineering standpoint. In every part of the analysis they keep saying "may have", "probably happened", "suggested that". In fact for building 7, they clearly say that they cannot find a reason for it to collapse due to fire, as the official story goes, and they go on to say that one possible way to explain it would be if an underground gas tank caught fire, that would provide the necessary heat and bring down the building as a demolition. So again, very light on "proof" and more like speculation, which btw I'm not saying is incorrect, it all makes sense, but it's still one theory. Elfguy 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you've inadvertently discovered one of the main differences betwenen conspiracy theory and real science. The scientists, who didn't actually witness then event and are familiar with the extent of their own ignorance, deal in likelihoods, not absolutes, in this and in everything else (The evidence we have now suggests that the Theory of Gravity is probably correct.) There will never be Absolute Indisputable Proof of the method of WTC 1 and 2's collapse, or Gravity, or anything else. But this doesn't mean we need to engage in wild speculation on Wikipedia. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the report you are referring to doesn't mention building 7. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Disputed I have added a (Disputed) tag to this article for the following reason. It has become abundantly clear that the only facts permitted to enter this article are those that support the official viewpoint. This is not objective or balanced. Any reference to controversy or credible claims that would reflect negatively on official accounts are quickly and decisively deleted and contributors disparaged as lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists. (See [252] for the most recent example.) For additional examples see above under: Facts and Nothing But, Reasoned Debate...,Wikipedia isn't everything, Conspiracy Theories, Phone Calls, Stock Market, NPOV, Disputed and of course Newbie Welcome Message

This has gone on long enough. Before removing my (Disputed) tag, please explain how my reasoning is flawed. How I missed the point, that this is actually a really fair and balanced article that doesn't ommit facts from credible sources, just because they might not support the official accounting of events. Tell me that all of my contributions haven't justified as single line being added to this article, because not one word was good enough to add value to the article. (For specific examples of the horrible words I wish to add, see Phones and Stock Market text in bold.

I want to believe in the good faith of my fellow contributors on this page, really I do. I don't want this to be my last contribution, but I don't know what else to do. Throw me a bone, somebody... --Digiterata 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about fact

There isn't a dispute about facts here. Digiterata, please list a fact not included in the article or a something in the article stated as fact which is false, before adding the tag.
Digiterata, what we have here is an editing dispute over the threshold for what is verifiable, accurate and relevant on the September 11, 2001 attacks.
There's a consensus here that what's been entered here as speculation and coincidence and without evidence and without an explanation for how the official investigation didn't reach that conclusion is not considered good material for this article. There's a Wikipedia article where I believe everything that's been recently deleted from this article can be found and September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks links to it, namely 9/11 conspiracy theories. You are free to persuade others in this talk page that this consensus is wrong.
The obligation under the policy of the Wikipedia is to avoid giving undue weight to minority points of view. We are following the policy with a link rather than allowing duplication of the presentation of those points of view which lack verifiability beyond the simple recognition that the point of view has proponents.
The bone you are being thrown can be found in Wikipedia dispute resolution. patsw 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the bone, I think I'll pass. A real gesture would be to say "Look, on these four points you're an idiot, but on this fifth point - well maybe we can work something out." Send it to dispute resolution? That tells me just how willing you all are to engage in reasoned impartial analysis based on fact. patsw I've seen your comments on this page before. I would have expected more from you. --Digiterata 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fact that was recently censored

"Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 28, 2004 states credible whitnesses claiming that black boxes were found [253]"

Credible source, relevant issue, quickly and decisively deleted and marginalized as conspiracy theory for only one reason: it doesn't support the governments claims. It's the most recent example I could find taken from here [254] Deleted with instructions to take it to save it for the Conspiracy Theories page.

Let's look at that report:

But New York City Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a book self-published by Ground Zero workers that he took federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and located three of the four. His account is backed by a well-known Ground Zero volunteer.

A book "self-published" and he claims he did something, and there is a "well-known Ground Zero volunteer"...and this adds up to what...a self published book written without any proof the event ever happened, and no one cited that can back up his story.--MONGO 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Book published by a misleadingly named organization in which the person running the organization has been criticized for mishandleing money...says so right in your link. Read it.--MONGO 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
A NYC Firefighter publishes a book describing his own account of the events following 9/11 and you want to rip this guy apart because his account doesn't mesh with the 9/11 Commission? This guy is a true hero! He is an expert in his field, and he provides a first and second hand accounts of the events from his own experience. Why is his account not credible? Because it doesn't fit the official version of events? He is exactly the kind of person you should be celebrating for his brave actions on and after the event, but you want to label him a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist and destroy his credibility on this page, just because his memory doesn't mesh with yours or the 9/11 commisions? No one is safe from your attacks are they? -- Digiterata 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
And now you're also going to slander thr Ground Zero Workers for self-publishing a book, because of a vague reference to the criticism of their accounting? Who criticized it? Did they also criticize Nicholas Demasi? Noone is safe from your wrath, not even the NYC Fire department or the Ground Zero volunteers. If you truly believe that the NYCFD and the GZ volunteers are not to be trusted, then who is, a bunch of academics and beaurcrats from the 9/11 commision who publish a report years after the events? I don't buy it. The fact that I've listed multiple factual ommissions and none of you has explained why they should not be included tells me that deep down many of you don't buy it either. -- Digiterata 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And another that was excluded for the same reason

From Stock Market: "In the days leading up to the attacks, a number of suspicious trades were placed against United and American Airlines as well as Boeing. These trades resulted in a significant increase in short-selling and put option activity (bets that the price would fall) Media reports initially indicated that these trades indicated possible foreknowledge of the attacks. However, on further investigation no connection was found."

Tell me honestly, if the US Government had discovered that Al Quaeda was behind those trades, what are the chances it would be excluded? It was relevant then and it is relevant now. To censor this item just because it doesn't support the official story is blatant POV bias.

I'll stop here because my arguments fall on deaf ears, but each item I listed in my prior post is an example of such censorship. You people are bullies and your ends justify the means mindset is destroying Wikipedia. If I thought there was a chance of gaining consensus through reason and fact, I would continue to contribute, but you people are bullies and there is simply no way to reason with you. Please continue to tell yourselves that 22.1 million citations in Google for '9/11 critics' is a tiny minority of kooky conspiracy theorists. The fact that this article contains Zero criticism other than a few lines about conspiracy theorists stands as my evidence that this article is riddled with propaganda and censorship, but I'm just another tin-foil hat-wearing lunatic right? --Digiterata 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again an admin just told me that my argument has no merit or basis in fact, and after all, he is the decider, he decides [255] so I guess that's the final consensus on the issue. Forget everything I just said, I'm wrong; you are all right. -- Digiterata 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA--MONGO 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know why none of this guy's work is being included here? Looks to me like he's got a legit beef. Good references & decent points. I'd be pissed too 216.221.65.134 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of closed minded people roaming on all controversial wikipedia articles. Elfguy 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Global Capitalism?

I have never heard an argument for the notion that the 9-11 attacks targeted global capitalism. Never have I read anywhere of Bin Laden or Al Quaeda voicing an opinion contrary to capitalism. Indeed, Bin Laden himself, the son of a wealthy family, is a benefit of capitalism and has used much of his inheritance to fund Al Quaeda operations. Until someone can demonstrate that 9-11 was an attack on global capitalism, I am removing those words from the first paragraph of the article. Griot 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was. What is/was the WTC?. We know where Bid Laden comes from as well as Bush. The attack was not only aimed at U.S infrastructure but to cause financial chaos and bring down the institutions of global finance capital. -- max rspct leave a message 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Max rspct, is this a widespread view in the academic community or the intelligence community? gidonb 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the view of many academics. Don't go on what beligerent institutions (intell) say. Take Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation for a start. These are interesting links : 9/11 comm, U.S NGO, Daniel Pipes also writes for this mag.. -- max rspct leave a message 20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please produce a quote from Al Qaeda showing that the group is anti-capitalist and cite it in the text. Griot 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Try these links too: A U.S NGO, A news report.. seems treat this as obvious. As for al-Qaeda.. which isn't a global organisation as such - try Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War -- max rspct leave a message 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


"Injustice had affected the people of the industry and agriculture. It affected the people of the rural and urban areas. And almost everybody complained about something. The situation at the land of the two Holy places became like a huge volcano at the verge of eruption that would destroy the Kufr and the corruption and its sources. The explosion at Riyadh and al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the severe oppression, suffering, excessive iniquity, humiliation and poverty.People are fully concerned about their everyday living; everybody talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever-increasing debts, and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten of thousands and hundred of thousands of Saudi riyals. They complain that the value of the riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies. Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of millions of riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billion riyals is owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder, are we the largest oil exporting country? They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulema and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation. Quick efforts were made by each group to contain and to correct the situation. All agreed that the country is heading toward a great catastrophe, the depth of which is not known except by Allah. One big merchant commented: "The king is leading the state into `sixty-six' fold disaster". We bemoan this and can only say: "No strength and no power acquired except through Allah". Numerous princes share with the people their feelings, privately expressing their concerns and objecting to the corruption, repression and the intimidation taking place in the country. But the competition between influential princes for personal gain and interest has destroyed the country." .. "It is incredible that our country is the world's largest buyer of arms from the U.S.A. and the area's biggest commercial partner with the Americans, who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men, and financial support. To deny these occupiers the enormous revenues of trading with our country is a very important aid to our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of) cleansing our sanctuaries from the Crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated." Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War -- max rspct leave a message 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That declaration fails to mention anything about 9/11 being an attack on capitalism--he's talking about the economic mismangement of the Saudi government. But this isn't really suprising seeing as it's from 1996. The "US NGO" is simply a writeup for a book published by a research foundation, and Newsmax.com is hardly a reliable source. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It is self-evident. A declaration of war with reasons being given! An anti-capitalist/anti--globalisation 'rant' or manifesto. Whether it is viable or disagreeable is another matter.. An attack on the WTC. It is generally accepted as an attack on U.S-led capitalism whether it had failed or is considered 'symbolic. max rspct leave a message 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The strike against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was a violent blow against the United States and a symbolic attack on capitalism and commerce. " - Russell Sage Foundation -- max rspct leave a message 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So somewhere in the appropriate subsidiary article about bin Laden's motivation you can say, "According to the Russell Sage Foundation..." Tom Harrison Talk 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
In the first sentence, it implies that was one of Al-Qaeda's motives. But a simple reference to the WTC as a symbol of global capitalism and commerce, in the second paragraph, could work. How about the following to replace the present text:

On the morning, nineteen hijackers, affiliated with al-Qaeda,[2] [3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Two planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a symbol of global capitalism and commerce. [4] Within two hours, both towers collapsed.

Is this suitable? -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Though the phrase "a symbol of global capitalism and commerce." is a bit wordy. I would prefer something more succinct. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
More succinct? How about "World Trade Center?" :-) Tom Harrison Talk 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
True. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Using the phrase "attack on capitalism" implies that Al Qaeda is anti-capitalist. This is simply not true, and none of the sources you cite indicate Al Quaeda's stance vis-a-vis capitalism. I'm taking capitalism out until you can prove to me that Al Quaeda is anti-capitalist. Griot 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right. It was a fleeting thought, an attempt to extend an olive branch to max. But, I don't like the wording "global capitalism", and simply saying "World Trade Center" is perfectly succinct.-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes go on water it down so much! It was not just symbolic.. Why don't we put 'according to tom harrison' believes that... ? Against capitalism, US imperialism. These are major aspects of the attack. Tucking it away is not encyclopedic. I have provided sources. The WTC is an set of international institutions (the cia office) and corporations. I might have expected as much. I wonder how many are the regular editors are NSA/CIA. Be ashamed. User:Kmf164, I have not revert thrice, and u refuse to answer me. Oh and who is 'we'. Trying to scare me off? -- max rspct leave a message 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Did anyone actually click on global capitalism as see where it led? Financial capital, which is what most of the 'employees'/businesspeople were involved in. max rspct leave a message 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we editoralize on behalf of Bin Laden? If he has made any particularly telling or relevant statements, quote him and let him speak for himself. Anything else is less than essential to a good understanding of the subject matter. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The World Trade Center was not an "international institution." It was a building. As the most prominent feature of the New York skyline and the two tallest buildings in NYC, it was a major symbolic target for Al Quaeda. However, Al Quaeda is not anti-capitalist. You continue to fail to show that. Please do not imply that Al Qadeda is anti-capitalist. The terrorist attack was aimed at the United States, not capitalism. Griot 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The companies that operated from it were global capitalist companies/institutions.. even if HQs in U.S. New York is a world financial centre.. Hmmm wounder why it was called WTC HUH?The aim was obviously a blow against US-led capitalism. Why should we editorialise on behalf of USTV/media/government/us citizens only/bereaved relatives?? I am beginning to agree with the sentiment that "wikipedia is postmodernism on crack" -- max rspct leave a message 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out where there is editorializing on behalf of anyone in the article? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Without citations from Bin Laden or AQ, the "WTC housed financial ppl so it was an attack on finance" is OR. If you do, please elaborate on this new link between Islamic fundamentalism and socialism - it would certainly be news to many people. Max, please don't inject or project your personal politics into this: [256]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)

The citations are above. What do you think a declaration of war iz????? More than enough evidence. Don't insult my personal beliefs in order to dissuade me. -- max rspct leave a message 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism.. who mentioned anything about that? Maybe you're inherently anti-socialist and thats why u keep reverting. Anti-capitalism does not mean 'socialism'. I have spend over 10years studying in academic institutions.. But that don't matter at all when the article is being controlled by NSA and north americans in general. max rspct leave a message 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

max rspct, please assume good faith and mind WP:CIV. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "war" is a relious war, not a economic war...The WTC and pentagon were just targets of opportunity for maximum exposure and maximum death and destruction...key elements of terroristic enterprise. Osama has made it clear numerous times that he would like to see a united Islam under one flag, one leader (him in all liklihood) and fundamentalist Islam in theology. The attack on WTC, etc, were not designed to do anything other than to show that he can strike anywhere at anytime...in this endeavour, he succeeded. Osama is smart enough to know that the best way to cripple the U.S. economy is Oil...so had his desires been to truly hurt the U.S. economically, all he has to do is go after the oilfields and supply lines...which would be an easier thing to do anyway.--MONGO 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. So... not economic but .. Think - the oil fields aren't a good target MONGO. They don't have military parity with USA.. to waste resources bombing a few pipelines., however they bombed Petagon and WTC. So not economic?? ... but the WTC is bombed wiping trillions off US economy... bond traders leaping out the windows.. It was partly economic action to a lot of people. Read the declaration of war.. this was a result of bin Laden + co's recognition that Muslims are suffering through US-led capitalism. Yes there is righteous religousness. But it is definately anti-imperialist/anti- us capitalism. He doesn't have to be anyone's hero to behave like that. So what if bin Laden has voiced one of his preferred eventual outcomes - more islamic states. But he has reasserted that this is self-defence and they have not bombed any country's citizens not involved in the wars/military occupation for oil. They were bombing U.S interests yes.. Economic and political (like these 2 things have ever been separated from each other - oil/arms sales/us foreign policy in Arabia!?) No it wasn't socialist or anarchist. Plenty of third world insurgents from year dot have resisted colonialism.. with the imperialists saying.. Oh they're just uppity witchdoctors..Look at Mugabe and Zimbabwe - War and atrocities on both sides at the time.. Lots of shamanism going on check book: Guns and Rain: Guerrillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe by David Lan (anthropology on cambridge uni etc reading lists ISBN 0852552017) . But the Zimbabwe liberation war is today seen as 'classic' independence struggle... even if Mugabe is widely regarded as a monster. During that war, the white supremacist Rhodesian regime contantly referred to insurgents as 'terrorists' as did South African Apartheid government when refering to the ANC etc -- max rspct leave a message 12:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What does any of this punditry have to do with the article? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever symbolic value the World Trade Center had within the United States, for global capitalism it was just another office building. The name itself, World Trade Center, makes it a symbol of money and American arrogance. Rightly or wrongly, many people outside the US, including bin Laden's target audience, see those as the sources of American foreign policy. Peter Grey 13:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

jUST another building? That is blatantly untrue. -- max rspct leave a message 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


YOU LOT HAVEN'T PROVIDED ONE DAMN SOURCE. --max rspct leave a message 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A source for what? You don't need to cite the absence of material in an article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "Global capitalism" anyway? Peter Grey 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The capitalism that the US espouses and is pushing. Genocide, multi-national_corporations, resource and human exploitation, arms manufacturers. stock markets, banks, governments.. Why don't you just read the description up in the declaration of war. You also read the Petroleum, globalisation and Capitalism articles. There should be a whole paragraph right at da top but I linked this to more technically-termed article financial capital. -- max rspct leave a message 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow--Most people try and hide their more extreme biases, or at least tone them down a bit. This isn't even worth a reply. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No.. I was directing the user to capitalism-related articles. Global is the adjective, capitalism leads to Financial capital which is what the companies inside the buildings were concerned with. Please read what I have put before. -- max rspct leave a message 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, does the vast global conspiracy behind "finance capital" that was hidden in the WTC include:
  1. Secret banking groups?
  2. Secret banking groups and spies?
  3. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies?
  4. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies working for Israel?
  5. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies working for Israel on behalf of their alien lizard overlords?
It is so hard to keep track of the specific conspiracist narratives these days. Number 3 was a favorite of Hitler. Number 5 is the theme for David Icke. Number 1 would be the John Birch Society. The other two are easy to find on the Internet. So little time, so many conspiracy theories...--Cberlet 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Mr Chip et al - I have not pointed out secret 'conspiracies'. Don't tie this up with the 'demolition' theorists. Who mentioned Jews? The finance industry = the Jews? I am not saying that.. Chip looks like he has waded in saying there is an anti-jewish conspiracy. None.. I am not on that tip. Look at my previous posts. You still editor of high times? ;-) -- max rspct leave a message 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Not with High Times anymore, but proud of the articles I wrote, thanks for the paltry smear attempt. It was bin Laden who raised the issue of Israel:
  • "It is incredible that our country is the world's largest buyer of arms from the U.S.A. and the area's biggest commercial partner with the Americans, who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men, and financial support. To deny these occupiers the enormous revenues of trading with our country is a very important aid to our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture."
The idea of "finance capital" as separate from "industrial capital" was a core theme of fascism. Perhaps you were unaware. It is possible that the terrorist attack was meant as a blow against global capitalism, but you will still need to cite a reputable published source. Perhaps if you reduce the level of anger and hysteria we could attempt to find some reasonable collective compromise?--Cberlet 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I linked [[global capitalism] to financial capital not finance capital. Yes industrial capital but the specific point is that an attacks on financial or bond trading + arms companies that are critical to the operation of industrial capital.. capitalism on a wider scale. I am not smearing, just using the 'editor of' joke (have u been smoking again?? convivial way) to point out that it looks paranoid (u just took 'finance' and ran with it) leaping to the conclusion that I am talking about Jewish people or claiming anthing ZOG. -- max rspct leave a message 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If bin laden's goal was economic, then again, the oil fileds would be a much easier place to start. Just a few attacks on a few refineries would send oil through the roof...greatly impacting the price of crude...he doesn't even need to really affect supply greatly, just the perception of such a threat would be sufficient. Regardless, attacking the WTC and the Pentagon and probably the Capitol, had the fourth one reached it's target, was simply an act of terrorism, not an attack on capitalism. I see almost no evidence he is is a marxist or socialist...most likely he is a fascist--MONGO 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I haven't been toking up.--Cberlet 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
November 03, 2001 - Osama bin Laden is denying responsibility for the terror attacks on the US.
September 16, 2001 - Americans want revenge as bin Laden denies responsibility for the attacks.
It's a funny old world in this New American Century. Confabulous 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Welcome Message: NPOV, Consensus, and Relevant Facts

Warning:The following message should be considered Trolling 
Please skip this message if you would rather not hear the truth (IMHO) 
The contents of this message may raise your blood pressure.

I want to welcome all newcomers to the September 11 attacks article with a few words of warning.

For those of you who wish to make edits to this page, if you feel that this article is missing relevant facts, please consider the following. Before contributing, ask yourself whether or not your contribution supports the official account of events of 9/11. If it does not, your edits are not welcome here. Only facts that support the official account of events are acceptable. Any facts which do not are considered Conspiracy Theories and should be added to the appropriate article [257].

This guiding principle applies for any and all edits which might be construed as critical of the official accounts. Wikipedia NPOV policy WP:NPOVdoes not apply to this article.

If you are concerned that this article does not appear to be fair and balanced as it does not include any reference to criticism of an obviously contentious topic, please again, take it to Conspiracy Theories. Your contributions are not welcome here.

If you somehow believe that this message doesn't apply to your criticism and that adding your voice to the debate will make a difference. Please don't waste your time trying to resolve your issues on Talk [258]. Take it to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories site [259]. Your contributions are not welcome here.

Those who provide credible references to relevant facts that dispute the mainstream viewpoint will be shot on sight.

Again, only facts that support the mainstream view of accounts are welcome on this page. All other contributions, regardless of their relevance, credibility of sources, or factual nature are unwelcome. If you hold such views, or simply think that a fair and balanced article, particularly on an issue as controversial as this, should have some mention of the controversy, please take it to the Conspiracy Theories page - you tinfoil hat-wearing nutter! Your contributions are not welcome here.

(The previous slightly tongue-in-cheek, extremely sarcastic, comment was posted by a very frustrated former contributor who has probably said too much already) --Digiterata 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider it a warning to future potential contributors who may in their naivete, assume that this is a fair and open venue ready to accept all good quality, factual submissions, even those that the good old boys of this page disagree with. Looking at my previous attempts at contributing to this article, I am appalled at the amount of time I wasted trying to employ silly tactics like reason and open dialogue. It's clear to me that those who wish to maintain the status quo are immune to my 'dirty tricks'. I just want to warn others to learn from my mistakes and not waste their effort. --Digiterata 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the situation described above, or the description itself? — goethean ॐ 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss changes to the article, not to critique US foreign policy, pontificate about the struggle of class against class, or vent about the shortcomings of other users. While occasional off-topic rants are usually tolerated, at a certain point they begin to disrupt our actual work here, which is after all writing an encyclopedia. I think we have passed pased that point. This needs to stop, or we may have to start removing off-topic commentary, and maybe ultimately blocking disruptive users. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Define disruptive. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the blocking policy, disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he's made some strong points. Don't give up dude, this place needs a bit of balance. Don't give into the bullies 216.221.65.134 02:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This guy is obviously trolling. However, I do agree with his point, from having followed this article for some time. If there's one thing, if anything, that everyone should agree with, is that this article is disputed, yet after many attempts even a disputed tag is constantly removed. I'm afraid that the closed minded community is strong here. Elfguy 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Font size

Please do not reduce the font size. The guideline is that article content not include specific font changes, and the Wiki's html generator (Cascading Style Sheets) owns formatting. It hinders readability by people with some vision impairment to reduce the font size. See WP Manual of Style:Formatting Issues for the details. patsw 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

September11 Wiki -Memoriam (and questions I have hard time finding answers to)

Amazing. The September 11 Wiki isn't even linked or listed here? Is this how disconnected the whole Wikipedia and it's sub-sites are? Seeing as I can't seem to find an article on or about the September 11 Wiki; I decided to ask a question I have about it here: what are the reviews saying about the documentary film 9/11 Eyewitness? It's probably b.s., but I was interested in finding out the reactions. Also, why is there a wiki for 9/11 (including the online Memoriam); but nothing like that for other things like, I don't know, Hurricane Katrina victims; or other "disasters" from anywhere outside of the U.S.? Wikipedia isn't an American encyclopia, is it? Another question I have (this is sort of off-topic) is whether or not the articles on Wikipedia in other foreign languages are: 1.) translated via a translator(s), 2.) translated via a program/bot/script, or 3.) completely rewritten in the new language? If it's 3, I feel it's really a waste of time and energy just to rewrite an article from the bottom up all over again per each language. THis same question applies to the Wikipedia project (yet another project/sub-site I stumbled upon) Simple English Wikipedia; shouldn't they attempt to simplify existing articles, instead of completely rewriting them in simple English? (sorry, but speaking of sub-sites and Wikipedia projects; has there been an effort to sort of gather and organize everything that has sprouted from Wikipedia [not article-wise]? I mean, it seems like everyday, I stumble upon a new project/subsite/group/etc., and it was because of luck that I found it [or else, it would never have happened]. For example, I found the 911 wikipedia, the simple english wikipedia, a group within Wikipedia that seeks to address problems; a similar group that is less "official", a "Counter-Vandalism Unit", and so on. There really needs to be an effort to group everything together, into an umbrella-article -- there are so many great "wikiprojects" out there which may never see the light of day, or can not be "advertised" or shown to the public.)

The article had nothing about the failure to find the black boxes of both planes at the World Tade Center. I added a sentence about the failure to find them (and witnesses who reported finding them), but StuffOfInterest deleted it with the terse comment that it belongs on the Conspiracy Theory page. I disagree. I think some discussion of the black boxes is quite relevant, and the article has it for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. More generally, editors who delete contributions fully cited to accepted sources should have to explain what they think they're doing. --JustFacts 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The bunch of Wikipedia articles on the 9/11 topics are vastly biased on the side of the official story. Even the 'official' criticism article which is called 'conspiracy theories' is nothing but a few alternative theories and a whole bunch of debunking. There really is a need for a comprehensive, point by point article of the dozens and dozens of issues that don't make sense in the official story, and that haven't been completely explained, everything from the 7 disapeared black boxes, the hijacker passport surviving intact from the plane, the missing camera footage, the towers collapsing from fire being the only 3 building in recent history doing that, the lack of a plane of anything from that plane at the Pentagon, the reports of secondary explosions in the towers from the many firefighter tapes, the controlled demolition look of the 3 buildings, the cellphone calls from locations where cellphones don't work, the reports from multiple companies that there would be something happening that day and reason why so many people were told not to go to work that day, the videos from the crashed flight lacking the actual plane or anything looking like one, the Pentagon hole being way too small for a plane to fit with the nearby windows all intact, and so many more. I was planning on writing one but I'm hardly an expert on this, just an amateur from another country who happens to have an open mind about this and not believing either side until some physical proof comes out. Elfguy 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
By definition, Wikipedia--indeed all serious encyclopedias--are "biased on the side of the official story." The entries are primarily based on the majority view of reputable published authors. That's what many of the Wikipedia guidelines discuss in detail. Editors unwilling to accept these basic ground rules are free to create blogs and post their views elsewhere on the Internet.--Cberlet 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Except when you consider the fact that the official story is a *US* story. If Wikipedia wants to promote itself as a US encyclopedia then fine, but it should be the goal of an online free encyclopedia to be about universal facts, not US based myths. In many countries around the world, not only is the official US story not believed by a majority of people, but it's actually not the official story of the current government. In fact this is just one of many articles where the US is over-represented. The general bias in this article and a couple others with strong bias editors may be due to the fact that the majority of them actually live in the US, I don't know, but the fact remain that if facts don't equal current US based government speach, then we should go with the facts. In the absence of any, and in the presence of severe discordance, both sides should be presented, or neither side. Elfguy 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a point of view that says the towers were brought down by the hand of God, in a case of direct divine intervention? How many people world-wide hold that view? Is that view perhaps expressed in main-stream non-US media? How prominently should it be featured in this article? Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not promoting any "official" story, rather the understanding of the events that is reached by consideration of verifiable facts. Now, the 9/11 Commission, for example, would be a reputable source which had resources to research issues and which was not overtly biased. That does not mean it is the only version of events, or that it cannot be questioned. What it does mean, is that evidence that something else happened has to be fairly compelling, not unremarkable facts out of context or guesses by amateurs. That said, while bias may be too strong a word, the article does need a little more of the terrorists' perspective - like it or not, that too is a part of the story. Peter Grey 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Peter Grey, that the "evidence that something else happened has to be fairly compelling." See the compelling 10Mb video linked to your quote, and perhaps offer some thoughts as to why it shouldn't be referenced in the main article. I also agree with you that the perspective of the terrorists needs more space. That space could be occupied by a few quotes from page 51 of The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New American Century. This prophetic document, with astonishing predictive prowess, described the terrorists' intentions quite nicely, and in their own words. Confabulous 07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additional detail

Hello - I don't have the power to make this edit, so I'm offering the suggestion to someone who does. Under "The "War on Terrorism" subsection of "Government Response," I think it would be useful to add a short additional sentance after the last paragraph: "As of March 2006, thirty-five New York City residents have died fight in the war in Iraq. Thousands more have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan and returned. Another 8,000 New Yorkers remain on active military duty." (Source: Gotham Gazette) 206.15.138.244 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


NPOV issues with Pictures

There seems to be an overwhelming number of pictures regarding New York, but only one each of the pennslyvania and pentagon tragedies, which were as much a part of 9/11 as New York. There needs to be a balance between them. Thoughts?--Gephart 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your complaint - however, I would like to see people not label every imbalance as an "NPOV issue". This is a lack of attention issue, not an NPOV issue. --Golbez 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed intro

I've trimmed the intro, removing the short paragraph on the "aftermath" - War on Terrorism, ... I really don't think it's needed in the intro, but if someone feels otherwise then go ahead and readd it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Were the Towers the first skyscrapers to burn down, or have other skyscrapers collapsed from fire before?

Just wondering. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They were the first buildings to collapse from a fire caused by an airplane impact. Peter Grey 02:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You surely are not speaking about WTC7.--Pokipsy76 12:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


That brightly glowing stream of molten iron cascading from the South tower prior to the collapse was also historicaly unprecendented, and is not explained or even mentioned in the anti-scientific official explanation. Confirmation bias is when you refuse to acknowledge the facts that stand in the way of your good story. Let's not do that here. Confabulous 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say it is anti-scientific? There is vast consensus among experts and eye witnesses that the official account is accurate. I'm not sure what your definition of science is, but you seem to be using newspeak. By the way, where did you receive your training in forensic analysis?--130.191.17.38 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no fact obscured here. There is no proof of what that is...looks like melting copper to me actually.--MONGO 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that the WTC was lined with copper! Thanks for clearing that up, MONGO! Notwithstanding that the totality of copper-cabling on several floors couldn't account for the volume of molten metal seen cascading from a corner on one floor of the South Tower in the minute prior to collapse, the following relevant quotes about maximum fire temperatures in buildings, from one of the official papers, refutes your folk-theory - because copper melts at 1084C:

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH THIS maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range." (Egan and Musso, 2001). Confabulous 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was lined with coppper, did I. I said it looked like copper, not iron. Of course it's not copper, but it's probably not iron either. Why do these conspiracy theorists continue to fail to recognize that the building steel didn't have to "melt"?...it only had to bend, and it's the floor pans that gave out...that is what supported the concrete floors, which was almost half the mass. Furthermore, constant sniping about there being no other steel frame structures that "burned down" is old news...not one of those were hit by wide body jets flying at high speed...hello.--MONGO 08:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Was building 7 hit by one? ... "hello." --Striver 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Did it have to be? Half a block away from millions of tons of falling debris...almost all the surrounding buildings were also on fire, or destroyed, thanks to Islamofascists...or did you miss that part?--MONGO 08:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with any other tall building fires that caused a spectacular stream of glowing molten metal, indentical in appearance to the result of a thermite reaction, to cascade from the burning building, MONGO? What kind of metal glows bright-yellow in broad daylight when melted at building fire temperatures? Why do defenders of the official dogma have to pretend that the spectacular stream of glowing molten metal cascading from the tower prior to its collapse didn't happen, or was too mundane to require any kind of rational explanation? Why are defenders of the official dogma so hostile to the facts that contradict it? Recall that Galileo was actually permitted to present his evidence challenging the official dogma, so long as he adopted a NPOV when comparing the "Two Chief World Systems." He was subsequently imprisoned and forced to recant on the basis that his dialogue was biased in favor of the Copernican POV. But the real reason for the persecution of Galileo was that his Copernican explanation - his abstract scientific model - did a much better job of explaining observations in the real world than did the official one. I suspect, MONGO, that you wouldn't have permitted Galileo to publish his book in the first place. Confabulous 09:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (typo corrected, clarity and precision modified) Confabulous 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not familiar...perhaps there have been other tall buildings that also had something burning coming off of them, Confabulous. Nothing about the video or what you have stated here proves controlled demolition, now does it Confabulous? Do you understand what proof is? I suspect if you were in charge of book publishing, we would have our world filled with nonsense. Do you have proof of controlled demolition, Confabulous? If you do, don't waste your time here with that profound discovery...call all the newspapers and the media and get the word out for surely they won't shut out this grand discovery of yours. Defenders of the "official dogma"...thanks for that, I needed a laugh. "Building fire temperatures"? I've seen automobiles melt in a forest fire and wood burns with much less intensity than aviation fuel.--MONGO 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence a) that it was iron, and b) that it was structural iron and not a steel filing cabinet or furniture? Remember, the building wasn't vacant. (And why exactly would the conspirators sacrifice their own lives (and their cover story) just so they could go into the building and bale molten iron out of a window?) Peter Grey 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Every tall building fire, MONGO, has resulted in "something burning coming off them." We call them "flames" in technical parlance. If what you flippantly and incorrectly described as "something burning" refers to the stream of brightly glowing molten metal cascading from the South tower (the molten metal that isn't actually "burning" (see oxidation)), then there is certainly no precedent. When fire raged for 3.5 hours in the 62 story First Interstate Bank Building in LA, gutting four and a half floors, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged for 18 hours at 1 Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, gutting eight floors, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged for 17 hours in a 56 story steel-framed tower in Caracas, Venezuala, gutting twenty-six floors and causing two of them to collapse, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged through the Windsor Building in Madrid causing non-symmetrical and gradual collapse of several floors over a timespan of around 3 hours, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. And when fire spread through six floors of the World Trade Center, North Tower, in 1975 (3 hours), no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. If you can find any example of this or a similar molten phenomena occuring in conjunction with any building fire on earth, please supply it. As for my understanding of proof, I suspect it's a tad more sophisticated than yours, and I find the question insulting coming from the kind of person who could cheerfuly assign the word "speculation" to a list of documented and referenced facts. You already tried to encourage another contributor to take only what they can "prove" to the washingtonpost instead of wasting time with that nasty stuff called evidence here at "the people's encyclopedia." When I mentioned that the washington post was certainly responsible for censoring Pentagon witness reportage (C-130), you demanded proof. But when given the proof you simply ignored it - it didn't happen! When I pointed out that seizure and suppression of Pentagon attack footage is, by definition, a coverup, you ignored that proof too - it didn't happen either! - not part of the official Arab-framing dogma! - move along! Five Israeli men -- Judeofascists perhaps, MONGO? -- were certainly arrested and detained as "suspected conspirators" on the afternoon of the attacks with, quote, "maps linking them to the bombing plot" [Bergen Record, Forward, Haaretz] and again, there is nothing to see here in the main article concerning these remarkable events that transpired on that remarkably evil day - so keep on moving. Video footage, and photos too, show a cascade of bright yellow molten metal preceding collapse -- but we can't document even that here, because the exact composition of the metal in the cascade can't be determined with 100% certainty, and because it might be one of those torrents of molten filing-cabinets that you often see pouring from office fires with such contempt for sufficient temperature! (in the way cars melt in a forest fire!) Confabulous 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (typofixmaticized) Confabulous 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some change to the article? Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the original point is that in recent history, only 3 skyscrappers have ever collapsed because of fire: WTC 1, 2 and 7. That alone should speak for itself. And it's not like there hasn't been countless other fires, some burning for days and destroying entire buildings without it ever collapsing. Elfguy 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Was there jet fuel and a collapsing 1300 ft tall building involved in these other fires?--130.191.17.38 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...it amazes me that these controlled demolition advocates seem to miss the basic point that none of the other buildings they cite as being comparable were hit by wide body jets flying at over 500mph and vitually full of aviation fuel. There are also key elements of Confabulous' comments that also miss the point. a)...hundreds of video cameras and media captured all or some of the collapse sequence from various aspects. Naturally, many things were observed at the WTC that were not observed at these other fires...which were also not fueled by aviation fuel. b)...no one knows what that is that is "pouring" out of the building and the controlled demolition advocates continue to state that it is iron due to it's color...maybe it is...but this doesn't mean that a thermite reaction is taking place as they wish some to think. c)...my knowledge of fire is pretty high. I have been to an engine academy, and was a stike team leader on wildland forest fires. On a fire I was involved in back in 1994, a car thief took the vehicle he stole into Croatan National Forest on the North Carolina coast and set fire to it to cover his tracks...this started a 25,000 acre fire and I did witness that this same stolen vehicle had portions of it's body reduced to slag...it had melted and pooled. Those five Israeli men were released...and the point there is what? I see...yes, the zionists did this so the U.S. would wage war in the middle east and the U.S. let them do it. Well, okay, that's simply retarded. Document facts eh...where...I see not one that is proof of controlled demolition. Confabulous has no idea what proof is and it would be amusing to say the least to see him submit his "proof" to any reputable news media, trade journal on civil engineering or elsewhere...I imagine their pain threshold for nonsense is significantly lower than ours is.--MONGO 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So WHAT if the men "with MAPS LINKING THEM TO THE BOMBING PLOT" were released MONGO? Does that means we shouldn't include THE REPORTED FACTS? Just because Israel repeatedly attacked the USS Liberty in a failed attempt to frame Arabs, like they've been doing since Isreal's evil inception(you know, like THE LAVON AFFAIR was designed to frame Egyptians?) does that mean you wouldn't report that Israel repeatedly atttacke dthe Liberty? Because they were let off the hook for doing it? ALl Kosher, mate? Is that how it works - just pretend it didn't happen? Why do you suppose they were let off, mate? Why do think Domink Suter was permitted to fly home whule US citizens were GROUNDED? CAN WE BE INCLUSIVE OF ALL THE FACTS, MOGO - or just the one you think are kosher?


My comment was deleted by Tom because I pointed out the FACT that [personnal attack removed] DON'T CENSOR FACTS, TOM - you have already censored enough. You have been warned Confabulous 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth Movement

Good day to all,

I have recently become aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement. While I find the movement's allegations to be disturbing and hopefully untrue, as a trained social scientist I must consider the claims from an objective point of view. I have recently attempted to add Wikipedia links to 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth from the main 9/11 Wikipedia page. Within minutes of doing so, they have been removed. While I understand the controversial nature of this information, Wikipedia is a general information service. To delete or censor information because it is contestable is a disservice to the Wikipedia community. To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia. I ask that the individual or individuals who are deleting references to the 9/11 Truth Movement refrain from their censorship. To hide information that is controversial interferes with those of us seeking to better understand the cause and effects of the tragedy of September 11th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .

Most likely the links were removed because they were from unreliable sources. Wikipedia generally has quite strict standards for what can and cannot be included as links. Jefffire 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) In response,have you reviewed these sources? I believe it to be credible and truthful to state that "an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation" as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Welcome. You can sign your name with four tildes(~~~~), which makes it easier to follow the discussion. Besides the three-revert rule, which I see someone has already mentioned to you, Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith. Allegations of censorship are not helpful. Assume that the rest of us, like you, are interested in writing a good encyclopedia. You might also find it informative to read through this page's archives. At this point there is not a consensus to further emphasize conspiracy theories in this article. "To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia." No, that's not the case. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Good day. I have only yesterday become involved in contributing to Wikipedia and have not reviewed the extensive discussion archives on this page. Nevertheless,I consider verifiability to be synonomous with truth and, thus, to refer people to the real Wikipedia pages 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a positive and objective contribution for people to extend their knowledge.

Information and links that don't go along the 'official story' are suppressed in this article. That's just bias that's present in many controversial wikipedia articles. You would probably have more luck at the alternate theories article, labeled 'conspiracy theories' to make sure no one reads it, and be aware that there's another crew of trained editors there that will make sure everything you add is spined to sound unbelievable. Ok so that was harsh, but it's what I've seen so far. Elfguy 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Appeal to pity--146.244.137.178 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Good day, while I may be misunderstanding your comment, I would hope that we work to create an objective entry that does not create bias. To mention the Truth Movement is both objective and verifiable, the exact methodology for a good encyclopedia.

the word "truth" in 911 "truth" movement is a form of newspeak. There isn't realy any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration.--130.191.17.38 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Joetkeck, claiming that you have not bothered to read the discussion, but have an opinion is fascinating, but hardly persuasive.--Cberlet 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC) I claimed that I have not yet read this wikipedia discussion regarding the controversy surrounding the 9/11 Truth Movement. I too hope that it is proven to be biased non-sense, but until the adamant within the movement are given ample opportunity to present their evidence then, as a trained social scientist, I can not dismiss their claims simply because I do not want them to be true. I encourage those who object to allowing reference to Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, for example, refrain from their censorship. Allow others to judge for themselves whether these claims are worthy of consideration.


Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Good day to all of you who are following this discussion. This is what I have just read regarding those who monitor and remove objective information from this entry:

I want to welcome all newcomers to the September 11 attacks article with a few words of warning.

For those of you who wish to make edits to this page, if you feel that this article is missing relevant facts, please consider the following. Before contributing, ask yourself whether or not your contribution supports the official account of events of 9/11. If it does not, your edits are not welcome here. Only facts that support the official account of events are acceptable. Any facts which do not are considered Conspiracy Theories and should be added to the appropriate article [260].


Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Please note, while I am not yet one among them, many individuals do not subscribe to the notion of discussing potential evidence of wrongdoing as conspiratorial. To refer people to the 9/11 Truth Movement should not be restricted on the main 9/11 page. i hope those of you who are censoring soon come to agree. Thank you.

This is not censoring, it is editorial judgement. There is a summary and link to the page that discsses and links to the litany of conspiracy groups. --Mmx1 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck How quickly my contribution is removed! You, or each of you, must moniter this page w/o sleep. My contribution is fair and accurate:

To question the validity of these outstanding claims, an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation. See 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Please allow fairness at Wikipedia. To not do so implies bias and, thus, censorship

Joetkeck 2:33 pm Central Let's see if my contribution as already been stripped --

Joetkeck 2:36 pm No, not yet.

I am only an observer to this conversation but I have a request. Please sign your name with ~~~~ AFTER your comments. Not doing so makes this discussion very hard to follow. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Joetkeck, what is it that you want to specifically change about the article? All you seem to be saying is that editors should allow any and all contributions to be added to the page, but wikipedia isn't about a free for all of random ideas. In fact, there is policy about original research. If you want to contribute to a wiki that has less restrictions on what constitutes fact, then I suggest you try editing this.--146.244.137.147 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 18

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

POV?

NOw you got Iran added to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report, this page is POV, NPOV it!--Striver 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No bias there! The Iranian government's views on the events of 9/11...well alrighty then. If they think the U.S. Government was behind the attacks then it simply must be so.--MONGO 09:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Im not talking about "truth", im talking about POV. Further, are you saying that the 9/11 Commission was not biased?----Striver 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the 911 Commission is not biased.--MONGO 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, im sure they are not. How could a commission headed by Thomas Kean ever be biased? For starters, they wanted to appoint Henry Kissinger to lead it! --Striver 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The commission can be considered a reliable source as it's conclusion have been checked and confirmed by others. Jefffire 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And dissagreed by others. Simply having people agreeing does not make them unbiased. --Striver 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that some people promote alternative views on the 9/11 events does not make the research commission biased. gidonb 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but the fact that it was chaired by Thomas Kean makes it biased. --Striver 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did this chairperson make the inquiry comission biased in your opinion? gidonb 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody, including StuffOfInterest, responded to my point posted May 3 about the alleged failure to find the black boxes of the two planes at Ground Zero, I've re-added the newspaper account to the article. --JustFacts 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, please don't delete my contribution based on your speculations. It's up to you to show that the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer is not relialbe. I will restore my contribution.--JustFacts 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

JustFacts: I did not make any speculations. The way you inserted it simply suggested that these testimonies were actually given. The new version is fine with me. The item did appear in the Inquirer. gidonb 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, there is sooo much material on the web, and even some papers peer-reviewed that everyone who do some research on wtc collapse or other topics must have doubts. I would even say that it's POV because it doesn't inform about concerns about what really happenned on 9/11 in the first paragraph. USA opinnion is also concerned as recent polls show. Just stating my opinnion here. 22:22, 24 May (GMT+1)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.6.227.52 (talk • contribs) .

Image pharming?

Am I the only one who thinks that all these images are going overboard? It seems like the very single possible picture of the towers burning has been uploaded here, might it not be better to follow the guidlines of pages like, for instance, NYC, and establish a gallery page to store excess or redundant images? Maybe it's just my personal POV, being from nyc, seeing them collapse once is more than enough, then to have them running on the covers of every single newspaper for just about every single day for about a year. Then the 2004 election cycle where just about every other campaign comercial was filled with them, then bloomberg doing the same thing during his election. It just doesn't seem like it actually adds anything to the article other than satisfying people's morbid need to see the towers collapsing from every single angle imaginable.--64.12.116.201 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree, the pictures are part of that day. They need to stay there. Caf3623 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

C-130 that accompanied Flight 77 through miles of restricted airspace

Any RATIONAL reason for not including the details in the main article? So far I've been subjected to what is apparently a kosher kind of personal abuse for simply raising the matter. Is it so threatening to the official dogma, Tom Harrison? Can we include it? Confabulous 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because a C-130 turboprop can't fly fast enough to keep up with a 757? Utter fuckingnonsense --Mmx1 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confabulous, If you provide multiple credible references and stick with the facts I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included. MMx are you stating in your engineering opinion that 757's cannot fly below cruising velocity?

e.g. According to the Washinton Post multiple whitnesses observed a plane resembling a C-130 flying above two of the planes ...

The Air Traffic control records show all planes traveling well in excess of their cruising speeds. Given that witnesses claimed they saw a 757, a private jet, or a cruise missile, I don't really count on witness testimony accurately identifying anything in the air. --Mmx1 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

The fatalities section is poorly put together in my opinion, with lack of sources and true facts. The first OFFICIAL caualty was Father Mychal Judge. However, I think that if anything, the Israeli special forces retiree was mot likely not the 1st casuaulty, as the planes were flown into the Towers before the actual hijacking took place. The most likely first casualty would've been a pilot or passenger on the first plane. What do you guys think?

40oz 2 Freedom 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Lies

Most of the content of this page is all lies. we should all know that bush destroyed the Twin towers through controllled demoltion. We cannot just be gullible idiots. We should change the content of this page to the truth, and nothing but the truth.

signed, Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! --71.125.65.226 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What were the planes for then? Answer that and you get a cookie. Pacific Coast Highway blah • my tracks 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, then after they demolished the two tall towers, they demolished WTC7 which was not hit by any plane to make their version more believabubble... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimWae (talk • contribs) .

Are you serious? Talous 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

well of course im serios. --71.125.65.226 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

These claims are widespread and unfounded. How do YOU KNOW that this is the case? I think you just want this to be true because it would be more interesting. Do you have a phd in structural engineering? Do you have inside links to the Whitehouse? MynameisRoB 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I smell a troll. 74.33.161.233 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I merely ask that he cites his assertion that we are all 'gullible idiots', and that we should change the content of this page to reflect a barely coherent, and quite frankly offensive, conspiracy theory MynameisRoB 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reducing 9/11 Disputes: A Possible Way Forward

The basic problem with the 9/11 controversy is that the official 9/11 Commission Report (headed by a White House insider, Phillip Zelikow), failed to address many troubling questions [261] that hang above the world like a dark cloud. The 9/11 wound will never heal until a fully independent investigation settles the most central and disturbing omitted questions.

Most of the disputes on Wikipedia center around incomplete, inadequate information. People in a dark forest cannot find a way out until there is light -- so arguing doesn't help.

Until certain questions are cleared up by the release of currently classified information, Wikipedia could reduce the conflict within its own pages by using a libary approach to structuring the subject headings to reflect the inadequate knowledge that exists around 9/11.

The existing subject headings for the topic are: 1. September 11th Attacks (which presents the official story as historically true) 2. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (which presents both proved and unproved alternative theories, and 3. The 9/11 Truth Movement (which asks questions).

I propose that parallel structure be given to these 3 subject headings to reflect the inadequacy of knowledge around 9/11, as per the outline below:

The most commonly accepted story, which has been advanced by the White House and the media (but not the firemen and police at the scene) could be placed under "9/11 Attacks: Official Theory". LIHOP's and MIHOP's and other theories could be placed under "9/11 attacks: Alterntive and Conspiracy Theories". Other sources of verified information that do not advance theories but simply ask the questions that were omitted from the official report could be placed under the "9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Investigations".

I propose that we take a vote on applying these proposed headings, and if agreed, that we submit the matter to an administrator.

Please vote yes or no here:


Yours sincerely, --PureLogic 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sincerely -- there's a place for all of the crackpot ideas -- it's over at 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article is reserved for a factual account of the September 11 attacks. If you want to reduce disputes, add your thoughts to that page, not this one. Morton devonshire 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember [262] ? It's right on your page. SkeenaR 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. My apologies. Morton devonshire 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, thanks. SkeenaR 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote no. The logic and quality of evidence used by the alternative theories are of the same scientific rigor as those found in Holocaust denial, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and Elvis Lives theories. None of those fringe beliefs justified renaming the article for the accepted view as a "theory."--Bill 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Lives? If anyones a crackpot, it is people who compare events that are within the realm of possibility and have historical precedent to crap like Elvis Lives. I don't believe that staunch defenders of the official story are stupid enough to believe their own words, so there must be other motives for these posts, political I'm assuming. Yes, the official story might have happened more or less the way it is claimed, but to question it shouldn't be such a crime. How about "Osama Lives"? [263]SkeenaR 20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Questioning it isn't a crime, and I fully support having articles about alternative theories. I was comparing the type of evidence that has been used to prove the alternative theories to show that there is no precedent for changing the title of the accepted view based on that type of evidence.--Bill 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No wonder they shut the page down! The arguing just never stops, and the insults are worse. All this could be cleared up with a proper investigation. Where are your facts, Mr. Morton Devonshire, when you say those who disbelieve the official story are crackpots? If your facts are so obvious and true that you can insult me, a complete stranger who has been nothing but respectful on Wikipedia, why don't you apply for the million dollars being offered by Dr. James Walter to anyone who can prove the towers were not brought down by controlled demolition?--PureLogic 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this the guy who's offering money to anyone who can disprove a nonfalsfiable theory? Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the beauty of it. The CT's can't prove that there were explosives, so they try to frame the debate so the issue is whether you can prove that there were not explosives.--DCAnderson 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hell no Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false. --Mmx1 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • PureLogic here. There is plenty of evidence that there were explosives, depending on where you look. You will not find it in the New York Times, for example. But you will find firemen and policemen and a janitor and a female office worker who have claimed that they heard massive explosions in the basement -- but they were not covered by the 9/11 Commission. And unfortunatley, the 30' lengths of steel beams were removed and not subject to forensic analysis so that evidenceis neither falsifiable or nonfalsifiable. The government did not need to analyse this evidence because it already knew who the perpetrators were -- it was able to announce 18 of the 19 names the next day. Amazing! And without any foreknowledge either. Just superfast and incredibly efficient sleuthing. A sudden about-face in competence -- the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the whole thing happened because of massive incompetence and compound coincidences across the board. But presto! -- in one day, the massive incompetence ship turned around and produced all those criminals.
So because of this sudden super competence, there was no need to conduct a formal 9/11 investigation -- that would take energy away from hunting down the terrorists. You know, the ones in Iraq, with Weapons of Mass Destruction. So the investigation was put off for 441 days while the families agonized over all the contradictions and finally managed to get a heavily window-dressed investigation led by a White House insider. (Interesting to note that the Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Challenger and JFK investigations were all started within a week.) Is it any wonder that half of New Yorkers, according to a Zogby Poll, believe that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge? That is why the 9/11 Truth Movement will never rest until its questions are answered. That is why there must be a formal independent investigation with everyone under oath (that's right, White House staff were not under oath during the 9/11 Commission investigation). Why was George Bush Senior meeting with Bin Laden's brother as the attacks unfolded? Why were the Saudis allowed to fly out of the US when everyone else was grounded? Let's get these answers, wherever they may lead, and deal with them. Then lay the issue to rest.--PureLogic 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This where the spiel comes in about how only verifiable facts are written about here and no original research is allowed. But if you can find verifiable information that you think is pertinent to the article you can try adding them. SkeenaR 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, SkeenaR. As a professional librarian with 30 years experience in the medical field, I cannot say that I understand the difference "original research" and "verifiable information". These are lay terms. In peer-reviewed literature, we talk about research methods, statistical analysis, meta-analysis, comprehensive literature reviews, and the like. But 9/11 evidence does not fit into the formal literature of any science; I have looked. So we have to use what we have. Multiple witnesses. New phenomena (such as steel buildings burning down) that have never been replicated -- and that is a scientific method right there. Replication. It looks as if these pages are haunted by aggressive people with some kind of an agenda. By the way, how long does one have to be a contributor to be eligble to post on the WTC Collapse talksite? There is no editing function available to me just now.--PureLogic 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actual evidence

Is there really evidence that there were explosives? Not simply the fact of catastrophic failure, or that witnesses heard noises in building whose structure was compromised, or a camera from several kilometres away captured some flame or dust? Something that actually points to the presence of explosives? Peter Grey 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why are you asking for evidence of explosives (and there are several very serious signs, squibs from windows far below collapsing zone, pyroclastic clouds, trajectory of debris that travels UPWARDS, speed of collapse... and others), and you are not asking for evidence or really good explanation of how the towers collapsed itself? It's been widely stated that 9/11 comission report didn't answer those questions well. Only theories are proposed there - no actual proofs, no evidence (evidence - steel columns - were destroyed quickly, hmm).

Your POV is very un-NPOV... 15:08 27 May (GMT+1)

  • This article by Stephen E. Jones has garnered quite a lot of respect on the Internet for its objectivity: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? You will note that it was published in the edu domain and probably on this basis alone would tend to carry as much or more weight than research published from the gov domain. For the benefit of those not particularly familiar with literature authentication and quality, it carries the essential attributes of careful research: a structured disciplined paper, written by a professional physicist, containing a lengthy authoritative reference list. It certainly beats a lot of the junk I have seen referenced on these 9/11 pages to date -- which has somehow escaped the notice of our self-appointed censorship artists.--PureLogic 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "This article by Stephen E. Jones has garnered quite a lot of respect on the Internet..."
I would like to point out that you can also garner a lot of repect on the Internet for waving a golfball retriever around like it's a lightsaber.--DCAnderson 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The only "evidence" that occurs in Jones' essay is the apparent temperature observed on 27 September, 2001, but Jones does not calculate 16 days of heat loss, so there is no evidence of the temperature at the moment of collapse, and no evidence of explosives. Peter Grey 06:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the essential attribute of scientific research. Even then, most scientists are skeptical of the research until its been replicated by numerous independent researchers.Bill 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. By this standard, where is the "evidence" that led the government to accuse 18 hijackers the next day? How did they know this so quickly, after not having known anything the day itself? Does this mean that we wipe the whole official story off of Wikpedia because it was not peer reviewed? Come on. Let's have parallel rules and consideration applied to all the logical deductions that have been made about that day in the absence of evidence that disappered into a huge pile of rubble and was then sealed off and removed.--PureLogic 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The conclusions made the day of the attacks have been "peer-reviewed" by many journalists - there is no lack of verifiable evidence. The assertion that explosives were present has not been supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Peter Grey 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Jones is also known for his 'research' into Jesus' supposed visits to North America. [265]. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jones is a Mormon I guess. His religious beliefs have no bearing on physics or 9/11 research.SkeenaR 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hosted at physics.byu.edu and actually seems to be part of the course material for a class. You can tell they have a rigorous peer-review process. </sarcasm> --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

BYU is a Mormon institution. SkeenaR 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I guess we should ignore Jones' other loony reesearch and take his 9/11 stuff at face value. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't bother with it. SkeenaR 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Being verified by science is not a requirement for Wikipedia. You can see that by reading this page: 9/11 conspiracy theories, which by the way cites the article you are referring to and many less reputable sources. And we aren't making any deductions about 9/11. We are writing about the deductions that others have made that have received worldwide attention.--Bill 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're saying the truth doesn't matter on Wikipedia, and that's why anybody can post any theory they want. That's truly bizarre. Morton devonshire 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, policy in this place says that truth is not criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. It's pretty simple, we can't say the moon is made of cheese, we say that buddy says the moon is made of cheese. SkeenaR 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
[266]
"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion."[267] Please study up.
SkeenaR 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Verifiability" means citing reliable published sources. You can read about what a reliable published source is in the link I posted above. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what that is. You can find someone else to sermonize to now. Thanks. SkeenaR 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean there. I pointed you in the direction of a link to correct what I percieved was a misconception about Wikipolicy. I'm sorry if that offended you? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only fair that people know what they are talking about, therefore, before anyone say's anything about 9/11 it should be facts not personal beleif. This way people can read the ture facts not opinnions. So when you have a POV through a FACT in to prove it(if you can). This is something the goverment of the great United States did NOT do! They presented presumptions and made up stories instead of facts. For example, the goverment said that the 78th floor of the South tower was "a raging inferno", but if it was how could Cheif Palmer get up to the 78th floor and devise a plan to put the fire out? Threrfore i conclude that the goverment deliberately spread false information about what happened on 9/11.

Because of that one comment? Your conclusions are thin as the paper they're written on. And yes, I know this isn't paper. --Golbez 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Pentagon 9/11 Footage Released

Anyone planning on adding a mention of the Pentagon's release of new video footage in response to conspiracy theorists? [[268]] I would but I don't know where to put it and how to word it to avoid being reverted. 86.49.76.137 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean that video where there is still now plane to see? Which is being promoted by a right-wing nut president of Judicial Watch who is currently being sued by the founders of the very ngo he highjacked and have stolen money from? Good try but Karl won't be impressed with you performance on this one.. [[269]]

=Comment from Sacca

I think the current article is biased towards to official US government account. While this article is to cover the september 11 attacs, it actualy just covers the official US government story concerning these attacs.

About this US government account there are more and more doubts, and these doubts are getting more well known in the general population.

Consequently, more people want to edit this page and make it more 'accepting' of those alternative explanations which some people choose to call 'conspiracy theories' And because not everyone agrees, the page is now locked.

I propose a solution to this which I think will solve the problem, and that is to simply make a new page called Official Account of 911 Attacks. Or something like it. Then Wikipedia will have moved back to the neutral zone, since both the official account and the alternative explanations will have their own pages. None of those two 'theories' is awarded special status as 'the truth', as is the case now where anything which doesn't fit into the official account is rejected from this page and can only be be mentioned on the page for 'conspiracy stories'.

This page can then be much smaller, and focus on the information which both theories have in common.

thanks, Sacca

I would be in favour of that Seconded 86.49.76.137 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, suggestion would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also this same idea has pretty much been beaten to death in the past. I suggest we move on.--DCAnderson 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The same small group guarding the article. There is no consensus to keep the page the same. The page remains locked for no good reason. A request for unprotection is not even acknowledged. Is this page special? Do the small group of guard dogs own this article? No. I'm going to try and start small.
Do we need another vote to get a majority opinion about this article? If we look back at the vote earlier on this page, we can see that most voters chose to keep the titles the same. Count one more vote for Keep if you make a new tally... Mysterius 08:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia account and the 9/11 Commission account are similar because both are based on evidence, and therefore closely resemble what actually happened, and therefore resemble each other. Commentary on the 9/11 Commission account belongs on the corresponding article. Peter Grey 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote to unprotect

  • Yes SkeenaR 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't see any reason this page should be protected right now.--DCAnderson 18:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can just go and request unprotection. Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your forwarding of my message was appreciated. I've put the request in. SkeenaR 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protection to be reinstated[270], because this page has been vandalized 10 times since then:[271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280]--DCAnderson 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Make that 11.[281]--DCAnderson 23:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's with Mahmood Abbas and Ismael Haniyeh?

Robin Hood 1212 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Another primary participant in the War on Terror

I would say both the United States and the United Kingdom are Primary Participants for one reason, both countries have sent the largest armies and the bulk of force to each event that has happened since - Afghanistan and Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.221.164 (talk • contribs) .

I second that!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.60.199.37 (talk • contribs) . Template:User 911--Chili14 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This user box will break soon as the 9/11 wiki is finally being deleted. -Quasipalm 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden Confession Image

The image labeled with the caption "Taken from the 2001 Osama bin Laden confession video." is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the confession video was faked (by saying that the man in the picture looks nothing like Bin Laden) and I feel the the only reason it was included here was to perpetuate this myth. For this reason I believe it should be removed. look here for more information on the photo: http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html --TeN 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Considering that Osama Bin Laden has been dead since Dec 2001, of course those videos are FAKE. You've got the fake ones there, and you say get rid of the REAL ONE????

"Conspiracy Theories"

The term "Altername Theories" would be better and more NPOV.--the Dannycas 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in mincing and using a less descriptive word just because some folks don't like the connotations. These "Alternate Theories" are conspiracy theories. They posit that what we saw in the news is false because of a conspiracy behind the scenes. I don't know how else to describe it.--Rosicrucian 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Very simple. ALternative theories. Easy peasy. The use of the term "conspiracy theories" is an obvious attempt to lead the reader in a certain direction before he has even started to read. That's why it is used, and why it is so often mentioned in the same breath as the Loch Ness Monster or other such silly notions.
This has been debated over and over again. It's old news. It's settled. It's a conspiracy theory. -Quasipalm
I disagree. It's not settled. And the "conspiracy theories" are no more theories than is the official report, which crucially left out vital questions and answers (see below). If that is NOT conspiracy, then I don't know what is!!

Agreed. However, it isn't going to happen. Shills and supporters of the official Conspiracy Theory are determined that nothing which questions the officially sanctioned lies will find it's way into the "respectable" sections on Wikipedia. Anything which questions will fall under "Conspiracy theories" in order to discredit it. I also find it curious that the people who edit the pages which deal with 9/11 and other such controversial topics seem to be the only editors who are able to work full time on their areas of responsibility. As soon as a question or doubt is posted, there are 2 or 3 who jump all over it in seconds. Surely this is JUST what you'd expect from people with a genuine desire to uncover the truth!

As an example of the lies and omissions from official sources, what about WTC Building 7? Why did it fall? Why did the 9/11 Cover-Up Commission not even mention it, apart from to admit (or pretend) that they had no idea? Why did they not order a further investigation of the fall of Building 7 in order to satisfy their remit of answering all the questions? Why was there no prompting from the government itself when all mention of Building 7 was omitted? Why did Larry Silverstein admit on TV that a decision had been made to "pull" Building 7? Why was this not examined closely? If it HAD been "pulled", why was this not mentioned in the official report? Why are there so many holes from an official commission whose job it was to answer all those questions? How can the official report be quoted as any kind of authority when by it's own omissions it discredits itself so thoroughly? I mean, come on! No major steel-cored building has EVER collapsed because of fire, and yet on 9/11 THREE collapse, in highly questionable circumstances, one of which wasn't even burning that badly, and yet the official commission tasked with finding out exactly what happened ignored ALL MENTION of only the 3rd steel cored building in history to collapse because of fire. A 47-storey building, with a massive steel core, which hasn't been impacted by anything larger than maybe a few chunks of steel, collapses for no good reason, in a manner which resembles a controlled explosion to surely even the least suspicious, and the commission putatively tasked with finding out WHY avoid all mention of it?!?! Please! Anyone who is STUPID enough to believe anything else they say should go and queue up to buy some Iraqi WMD, or Iranian Nooks.

Can you hear this message?
Can you hear this message?

And there, I think, we reach the crux of the matter. It is obvious to anyone who has the ability to analyse and ask basic questions that the official version of events on 9/11 is highly questionable, to put it mildly. The fact that there seems to be armies of drones willing to propogate the official lies on sites such as this accords well with the US government's policy of taking the war even into cyberspace, for I believe that is partly who we are fighting against, as well as poor ignorant sheeple who are misguided enough to swallow anything and everything their government tells them, simply because they do not have the courage to question.

"Conspiracy theorists", for the shills and supporters of the official line, are not kooks or crazies who believe the Moon Landings were fake, or the Loch Ness Monster exists. The Official Conspiracy Theory about Building 7 shows beyond all shadow of doubts that even officialdom engage in conspiracies - for how otherwise could an official appointed commission, specially tasked to answer all the questions, fail to even ask about Building 7, at least without conspiring among themselves to leave the relevant pages blank? This is a CONSPIRACY, and no amount of semantic arguing and dissembling will escape from the fact that THIS conspiracy theory is a real one. And yet, shills and supporters, you believe the rest of the story these particular conspiracy theorists trot out. Why is that? The very fact that the 9/11 Cover-up Commission was officially appointed does not make every word it says gospel truth. There is plenty of precedent for this; you only have to look as far as Lee Harvey Oswald and The Incredible Guided Bullet from the Kennedy assassination for outright lies peddled by officialdom.

Documentary on 9/11

Has anyone seen this provocative documentary? It's well done. I think it would be a good addition to the multi-media section:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

I like how it uses Wikipedia. Watch the whole thing for some Wikipedia close ups.

64.121.40.153 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole article on it here: Loose Change (video) -- MisterHand 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 [1]) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. That morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were hijacked. Two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower. Both towers subsequently collapsed within two hours. A third tower, Building 7, collapsed in the evening. A third aircraft crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. A fourth aircraft crashed into a field in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Approximately 3,000 people died in these attacks.

~~SECONDED. This is absolutley the only manner in which to conduct such an article - factually. The leading paragraph in the current article is distinctly POV. LD~~

Understanding the two sides

I find that in order to better tell the truth of 9-11 names such as terrorist and al-queada should be left out. In other words: NO fingers should be pointed to anybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamisamanou (talk • contribs)

That's silly. A weak argument could be made for the word "terrorist", but there is no reason not to call Al-Qaeda, "Al-Qaeda".--DCAnderson 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The notion that one can't be NPoV and say 9/11 was a terrorist act by Al Qaeda is absurd, to say the least.--Rosicrucian 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You think you've seen edit wars before, go ahead and try it. Bin Laden admitted again, two days ago, that he did it. Morton devonshire 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This Is Stupid: Highly Government POV!

This article has been stripped of a lot of valid, factual evidence, which does not support the government position. This presents an unbalanced prepresentation of facts to the reader. Is our goal to present the government position, or the truth, and let the chips fall where they may? Relegating dissenting voices to "Conspiracy Theories", especially when they are factual, is Orwellian, and un-American. The government's version of events is, after all, a so-called "conspiracy theory" itself, with Osama behind it. We surely don't want to remove any mention of Osama from this page, do we?

I shall begin a programme of re-introducing facts which are at variance with the government position. If we relegate the government's conspiracy theory to the Conspiracy Theories page, we shall to strip a lot of information from the page, and have little help in interpreting it left. A much more even-handed, NPOV method would be to restrict this page to factual assertions, and more speculative conspiracy theories to the "Conspiracy Theories" page. Some of the factual information that has been left out:

  • The Nov. 2001 Osama Bin Laden tape does not look like Bin Laden. His face is wider, he smiles a lot, he wears a wedding ring, which is forbidden in Islam, and he appears darker complected.
  • Of the four known videos of Flight 175 hitting the South tower, all show a flash of light just before the South Tower was hit, and of the one known video of the plane hitting the North Tower, there is a flash of light just where this plane hit.
  • There is a very good image of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower from CNN, in which what looks to be very probably a missle, is fired at the tower just before impact. This video needs to have a link from here, and be mentioned, if we want the readers to have a balanced presentation of the facts.
  • There is a video where squibs can plainly be seen chasing up the side of WTC7, before it came down. Enquiring minds should be informed. Several squib-like ejecta can be seen in nearly all films of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 before they fall. These should be pointed out.
  • Kevin Ryan, who certified the steel used for the WTC for Underwriter's Labs, wrote a letter early on, saying that fire should NOT have caused the steel to melt.
  • There are a number of very well documented examples of government proir knowledge of the attacks, and of government lying about this fact. Factual evidence that can support this idea clearly should not be off-topic. Although its bulk could be covered elsewhere, the reader should not be deprived of a balanced representation of this evidence in this article.

Really! Haven't any of you people seen "Loose Change"? Let's get with the program, and not reject factual data because it disagrees with the government's POV. To include these, and say, "it proves this or that theory" could possibly be construed as POV. To not include these, rejects valid, factual data, and is itself very POV. I am not suggesting that questionable or marginal videos be allowed here, but when their evidential value seems reasonably clear and important, shall we censor them from main pages? If there is anything to the claims that the government knew it was going to happen, allowed it to happen, or even assisted its happening, then we risk aiding the rise of tyranny in our midst by hiding up vital and valid facts concerning the cirucmstances of the attack. Shall the Wikipedia display only government announcements prominently, or is the Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia where the people and the hackers can speak the truth in spite of government censorship?

--ThaThinker 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I think the article you are looking for (that already contains many of the points you want to make) is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I hope this is helpful. -- MisterHand 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's precisely the point of what I wrote, is that facts inconsistant with the government position, such as they may be, should NOT be divoriced from the main article. It comes off merely repeating press releases from the government, otherwise. Did you even read what I wrote? --ThaThinker 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Many "facts" cited by 9/11 Truth Movement members are either unsubstantiated or thoroughly refuted, yet are still repeated by a plethora of sites, from personal pages to 9/11 "Truth" organizations. Thus, as unverified or even falsified information, they do not belong in this central article. I am making this statement while being as objective as possible. -- Huysmantalk 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not being objective. I do not propose to put unsubstantiated things here. Only things that are substantiated, but may agree with the government's theory. I can substantiate every one of my points. One of my points can be substantiated by viewing the original Osama "confession". The others can be found on videos from credible sources. What we have now should probably be a separate article, such as "The Government's Version of 9/11", or "The Government's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory".

--ThaThinker 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • In other words, the US Government's point of view is suspiciously similar to the account based on factual, verifiable information. I disagree that the US government's endorsement necessarily means that objective reality must be wrong. Peter Grey 23:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Right! Thank you for pointing out a common fallacy. -- Huysmantalk 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I never asked you to agree that the government's version is necessarily wrong. I propose to place such well-verifiable, substantiatable points here as there may be here. We can argue about the source of this or that video, and I would love to see these ideas refuted. However, what we have here is, "If it isn't what the government says, it doesn't belong here." How is that NPOV? --ThaThinker 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to convey that, "If it is demonstrably false" it does not belong in this article. -- Huysmantalk 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that's demonstrably substantiated is that the 9/11 Truth Movement website isn't demonstrably substantiated. Morton devonshire 09:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Theories

Personal opinions aside, "Alternate Theories" is infinitely less POV than "conspiracy theories".--the Dannycas 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And if the Wikipedian who reverted my edit could show me where in the archives this dispute was settled, that would be great.--the Dannycas 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps--"conspiracy theories" could be (mis)construed as prejudicial--but these views are by definition conspiracy theories. -- Huysmantalk 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the government's theory. Shall we remove evidence that tends to support it from this page?

Please be more intellectually responsible than that; calling the government's account a conspiracy theory is misusing the term as widely understood. Regardless, many critics of 9/11 conspiracism have demonstrated that the government's account best matches the available evidence and that the facts do not fit the positions of 9/11 "alternate" theorists (e.g. pod plane, WTC demolition, no Flight 77, remote control, foreknowledge, etc.). I was a 9/11 conspiracist for about 20 months before realizing my error; believe me, you do not have to lecture me about 9/11 "alternate theory" sites because I have seen them all. -- Huysmantalk 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility might be to have a bare bones version with the completely undisputed facts, and then a government version of events article, a well-verifiable events that don't fit the government theory article, and another with hypotheses and theories. Still, it seems unnecessary, as this one would fit the bill as an introduction to the subject with a number of its POV assertions addressed, and a small handful of important facts added.

--ThaThinker 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What are some examples of "well-verifiable events that don't fit the government theory?" It would be good to hear/discuss/address some specific issues. -- Huysmantalk 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a high-speed connection, you can see "Loose Change, 2nd Ed." at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=%22loose+change%22

Loose Change is an extremely unreliable video, containing an abundance of misinformation. 1 2 3 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In it, he points out four different videos that show a flash of light before the plane hit the south tower, available from reputable sources like PBS (he mentions their sources), and in one, it looks like you can even see a missle travel from the plane to the tower. Also, he highlights what look like squibs going off on WTC1 & 2. He describes interviews with people who heard secondary explosions at the towers. He shows a fireman who had been on the site, and says that it looked like a demolition, with one floor after another going "Boom, boom, boom". This was first seen on a documentary by the Naudler brothers (may be spelled wrong), French journalists who were doing a documentary on NYC firefighters, beginning perhaps a week before 9/11. This documentary also contains the only known clip of the first plane hitting the first tower, and there is a strange flash of light there. On LetsRoll911.org, he shows a clip of a CNN documentary, in which the missle hitting the south tower can be more clearly seen, when enlarged: http://www.letsroll911.net/images/missileignitionandlaunch.swf

There are no “missiles” being launched from the Boeings that hit the Twin Towers. 1 9/11 conspiracists have misinterpreted reports of “explosions” in the WTC. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan, who certified the steel used in the WTC, wrote an official letter complaining that fire should not make the steel melt:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

There are good reasons to reject conspiratorial explanations of so-called “molten” steel. 1 2 3 4 5 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I could give a ton of such examples. If I were to add many more, however, the article would become too long. Actually, I am not sure I can substantiate one of my above points, about the squibs on building seven. Here is the video, and I have never seen it disputed, but I'm afraid I don't know the source:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

I would find out where it came from before mentioning it in an article. It probably has a reputable source, as its on the site of a physics professor who is a member of Scolars for 9/11 Truth. His site is:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The “squibs” are not from controlled demolition. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is easy to demonstrate foreknowledge on the part of the government. Henry Waxman, a Senator on the Government Reform committee, requested 52 documents related to foreknowledge, apart from the many which are more commonly mentioned by 9/11 researchers:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=791&Issue=Open+Government

Also, the Able Danger program is now public knowledge, and had identified Mohammed Atta and two other hijackers in the U.S. well before 9/11, but they were prevented from telling the FBI.

I have not researched Able Danger nearly enough to come to a conclusion. -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

These are important pieces of evidence for anybody trying to make sense of 9/11. Whether they are found to have innocent explanations ultimately, we cannot know. The price of assuming they are innocent when they are really signs of an executive branch that could but did not prevent them, could be high indeed.

--ThaThinker 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. After viewing the information I will let you know my thoughts and its bearing on the article. -- Huysmantalk 00:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What makes the conspiracy in the conspiracy theory is the improbable claim that thousands of people officially involved in the examination of the 9/11 evidence have been able to keep a complex set of lies consistent for almost 5 years and managed to hide all the evidence of government foreknowledge or complicity — and for no apparent motive. patsw 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Amen. Mike Williams's article at http://911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html demonstrates the patent absurdity of a government conspiracy. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article provides the factual account. The US government version is found under 9/11 Commission; obstruction of the 9/11 Commission would fall under the same article, other government failurs might belong somewhere else. The conspiracy theories are under 9/11 conspiracy theories. No verifiable facts contradicting Wikipedia's version have been identified. Peter Grey 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Case closed. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's you guys' opinions. I disagree. I'd say we've got a POV dispute, as you guys seem very POV. I say this, because the videos and the sources are clear enough to be important, not because I wish to disagree just to disagree. You guys haven't addressed any of the specific evidence. This article needs to be updated to be more balanced.

Because the discussion of the "evidence" is too involved for this page, I directed you to websites which thoroughly refute the claims of Loose Change and 9/11 conspiracists. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't being partial, you would admit that Abel Danger is a clear cut example of something that was real that bears on the case. This article has pointedly and lopsidedly left out all evidence at any variance to the government view.

You can direct your concerns regarding Able Danger to the talk page of that article and also do what Tom Harrison said. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Without even assuming the factuality of any particular claim, can you admit that if there were any solid evidence that tended not to support the government claims, wouldn't you say that this article is an excellent place for at least a handful of the best, especially when it touches on something already in the article? --ThaThinker 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No; take it to 9/11 conspiracy theories and stop crufting up this talk page with loose-change links. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree: "conspiracy theories" is a POV title, see [282].--Pokipsy76 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

I aim at collecting information regarding the wikipedia users view of this article. Please read this --Striver 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really fine as it is; don't fret over it. Also remember that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- Huysmantalk 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Also remember Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight and giving "equal validity". -- MisterHand 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against trying to come to some sort of different concensus as to how to fix the problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't "really fine" as it is. That is a good idea to collect ideas on the subject. Wikipedia isn't organized as a democracy, and this is probably good for the inclusion of minority, but interesting views. If you check some of the recent Zogby polls, you'll see that this minority really is pretty substantial. I think collecting ideas on the subject should be a good idea toward figuring out how to fix the problem.

--ThaThinker 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't cite any of that stuff here. Violates Wikipedia policy: See Dubious Sources: From WP:RS "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [284] Morton devonshire 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did that page disappear?--Pokipsy76 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from discussion from Stiver's POV fork into userspace

  1. Add some of the most factual items that don't harmonize with the government version of events to the current article by having items from different viewpoints in one section of the article.
  2. Add some of the most factual dissenting items at various places throughout the article, grouping ideas by subject.
  3. Break 9/11 materials up into four articles: one with undisputed items, one with factual items which tend to support the government position, one with factual items which do not tend to support the government position, and one with more hypothetical or theoretical types of items.

(These were some different possibities I suggested as to how the POV problem might be fixed on this page.--ThaThinker 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Can someone list which information they think belongs in the respective proposed sections above? -- Huysmantalk 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've listed at least five solid points in the talk section already. Although many more exist, many should not belong here, due to concern for the length of the article. Anybody else? --ThaThinker 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Four of these "solid" points are trivially refuted in the links I provided. However, I am unsure about Able Danger and thus am going to research it from both points of view and will get back to you on that. -- Huysmantalk 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't. For example, the Conta war was conducted in secret, by G. Bush's Sr. G. Bush Jr. grew up with secret wars going on. A conspiracy of at least some size is possible. True, it did come out into the open, but then, 9/11 is still in the process. Many people have resigned or have been fired after blowing the whistle on 9/11 activities. Again, you have not even tried to refute any of my points specifically. I'm sure others will agree. Waving a magic wand, and saying a conspiracy is impossible without addressing the evidence does not make it go away. --ThaThinker 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that "waving a magic wand" does not make a conspiracy vanish. Did you even read the links? You can visit them in your free time or you can let me know if I should post (potentially very detailed and lengthy) refutations on the (already very cluttered) talk page. I am also aware of the fact that there have been real conspiracies (e.g. Dreyfus affair) but 9/11 is not a U.S.A. government conspiracy. -- Huysmantalk 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What you can do in the meantime is mention the "alternate theory" that Able Danger indicates U.S. complicity in the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the main article. -- Huysmantalk 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go that far, necessarily. While it can be taken as tending to confirm the idea, I am most focused on direct evidence, whereever it might lead. We will probably never really know unless it comes out in a court of law or a truly independent investigation.

One great link on Able Danger is to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html, and search on "Able Danger Failure". Then, choose the record for Oct. 19, 2005. Weldon's testimony is quite stirring, for a Republican, conservative congressman. There's a great interview here, also: http://www.mediachannel.org/mv21.shtml

I urge you to visit Able Danger: 20 Questions by Rory O'Connor. -- Huysmantalk 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is room to resolve at least some of this on principle, without raising a POV flag.--ThaThinker 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can agree in principle to check out any reasonable amount of refutations that you guys have to offer, and indeed I hope you guys are right, although I fear you guys are not. Even so, from the Wikipedia rules, you must allow 9/11 skeptics a voice here. As Striver's spot poll is no longer there, should I take it that it has been removed because somebody realizes it shouldn't affect the outcome, as per the wikipedia rules? As to the question of sources, "Loose Change" is an independent documentary, and could be a questionable source. I am willing to order the original documentaries from sources such as PBS or CNN, in order to verify his claims, if anyone has any serious doubts as to usability of sources. As for my part, I've seen these mysterious flashes just before the plane hits the south tower on History Channel footage as well, and even the mysterious ejecta that could be some sort of squibs, when the shot hasn't been cropped to remove them. I need no source other than the Nov. 2001 tape itself and any other real Bin Laden tape to prove that that wasn't him. Other points can be substantiated from the congressional record, or letters on the websites of congressmen. Although I intend to reason in good faith, 9/11 skeptics are not required to convince supporters of the official theory, in order to have a voice. --ThaThinker 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Every point you have made is original research, and this has been an ongoing series of arguments that simply do not refute the official findings. Striver's poll was in userspace and was a POV fork, so it is gone. We really don't care what some silly website has to say on this matter and your voice can be made here as much as you want, but we are not going ton have nonsense in this article. Wikipedia is liable to 100,000 lawsuits from the people that were related to or friends of those that died that day if we put heresay or original research in this article.--MONGO 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, why would relatives or friends sue Wikipedia for acknowledging alternative theories? Are the deaths of 9/11 victims made somehow more traumatic by exploring possibilities of guilt or complicity of the US government? Your implication seems to be that relatives/friends of victims are satisfied with the official explanation for the tragedy, and thus would not be interested in, would indeed be angered by, an attempt to pursue research into the role that their own government may have played. I think this is highly unlikely in the current climate of political antipathy and distrust.
I would just like to add that I do not find many of these 'conspiracy theories' convincing at all. Though I do not trust the agendas of radical or oddball theorists, I have no more faith in the validity of the US government's position, and the agenda behind it. 150.203.114.182 14:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not necessarily wrong, and I do not agree that it should not be in Wikipedia pages, when it holds water. Every point everybody makes was original research at one point. The existence of these explosions are not my finding originally, so it is not original with me. If you expect uz to find mainstream, commercial television sources critical of 9/11, we won't, and we believe this is by design. If we care about truth, we may have to weather frivilous libel lawsuits. Many of the families of the 9/11 victims support such investigations:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Here are examples of families who have gone public, saying the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash:


http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/13419/Father_of_911_Victim_Speaks_Out

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Bob_McIlvaine-GoldInterview_March_1_2006/bob9113106.mov is a relevent video on that site.

Here’s another: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0115-11.htm

The spectre of 9/11 families suing for libel for mentioning these things seems to me to be a phantom menace. It just doesn't seem very likely, as long as things are kept on as factual a basis as possible. Many would applaud this effort.

Mysterious explosions at the WTC may not prove anything about why they happened, but they are still something I think the people need to know, and the television networks, both conservative and liberal, have been engaging in a blackout of this information. My idea is to be forthcoming on evidence, but be very cautious in drawing conclusions based on them. Likewise, I don't favor revealing classified information, but, e.g. in the case of Able Danger, 1) it is already in the public domain, 2) governmental means of addressing wrongdoing have failed in this case (on Lt. Col. Schaffer's part, if in no other regard), and 3) among all the commercial television networks, only Lou Dobbs has made it a point to inform the people about it.--ThaThinker 18:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html --the Dannycas 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess really what I'm offering to do is to verify what an independent documentary maker did, where the documentary has generated a rather sizeable following, as opposed to simply putting my own findings and conclusions up, which are few anyway, on this subject so far. --ThaThinker 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't use blogs and no peer reviewed websites as a reference base. Websites that are written up by private parties are controlled by just one or a few individuals, so they have complete say as to what the website details. The video you mention is just pure POV, no one that understands the events takes it seriously and it is already discussed in the articles related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for clarification as to what constitiutes a reliable source.--MONGO 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use a blog as a reference base. Yes, "Loose Change" is POV, but if the documentaries it refers to actually have the same thing happening in them, then mainstream sources can be used. It is a suitable grounds for discussion, since there's really quite a substantial minority that support its claims. I am only suggesting bringing in a few of its best, most verifiable points. "no one that understands the events takes it seriously" is a clever, if curiously worded statement, which has some bad grammar. Many people have studied the issue in great depth, and take it seriously. This sounds like a POV statement. How do you define 'understands', and who makes that judgement? If you are the one who decides if they understand it, based on if they agree with you, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. It's amazing the people who come out of the woodwork to attempt to explain how the Wikipedia rules do not allow examination of this particular topic. The Wikipedia rules cannot restrict the right to talk about POV works, or else the Bible, the Third Reich, and anything or anyone else that ever held an opinion would be off topic. Yes, "Loose Change" is POV, but researching if its claims hold water or not, can be done in a NPOV way. There already is, for example, a Wikipedia page on it. We've already got Bin Laden vidcaps all over the place, and he is certainly POV. That doesn't have to keep an article discussing him from being NPOV. The sources, again, would be from the mainstream, even if the minority view is not, and can barely so much as get itself mentioned in the mainstream. Anyone else want to try to make the rules say something they don't?

By no means would I want to represent this as a simple issue, and although I have researched the attacks on 9/11 well enough to have gotten at least a reasonable sampling of both sides of the debate, it will take longer to propose arguments and counter-arguments, and consider both, than it will to see if we can come to some sort of resolution. I've been pretty busy myself, lately . For starters, I am simply making the effort to try to build some sort of concensus as to how the article can be fixed to include minority views, and then I would ask for suggestions as to the best items out there which tend to support alternative theories. Even so, there are already some well sourced or otherwise obvious points that could be made for starters, apart from the footage referenced in "Loose Change". I really do intend to give other people's refutations honest consideration as time may reasonably allow, but don't be surprised if supporters of alternate theories and hypotheses do not come to the same conclusion as to the validity of evidence that many supporters of the official version do. That's why its an alternate theory or hypothesis. --ThaThinker 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Bin Laden

Have they all been official verified as him? Was wondering for the validity of the captions.

The third one, in military uniform seems particularly odd, in that Bin Laden (on his Wiki page) is clearly described as a left hander, yet this photo shows him gesticulating in right hand dominant manner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebob (talk • contribs)

In, for example, the December 2001 confession video by bin Laden and al Qaeda associates, higher resolution shots show that that the video indeed shows Osama bin Laden. On bin Laden's righthandedness or lefthandedness see bin Laden Right Handed? by Mike Williams of 911Myths.com. --

Huysmantalk 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden's Recent Admission

Last week Bin Laden admitted his role in the attacks, but denied that Moussaoui had participated -- shouldn't this fact be in the article somewhere? Responsibility section? Morton devonshire 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is simple?

I believe this article is unbalanced and frankly ridiculous. I'm in the UK and we get very different news here... ;-)

In order to be at all scientific about this, we ought to:

  • Give a BRIEF account of different POVs that attempt to explain why these events occurred
  • Link to EXTERNAL sites that support these different POVs


If you'd like my POV (I bet you wouldn't, but hey...), the reason I believe Orwell was thankfully wrong is that he didn't forsee the proletariat becoming such a sophisticated and intellectually independent bunch as we are. But in order to prove him wrong we need to grow up...simply documenting the American news reports in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as an objective factbase on the event is just plain silly, guys. I mean come on... (LD)

In other words, the American reports are biased?--MONGO 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. --Striver 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the news is very different in the UK. The BBC and a few other outlets published a few discredited reports that the hijackers were alive. There's always bias, no matter the source. The current setup of this central article and 9/11 conspiracy theories is perfectly OK. -- Huysmantalk 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic date?

Does this date have any significance in the Muslim calendar?

It doesn't exist in the Muslim calendar, "September 11" occurs at a different Muslim date each year. --Golbez 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but was there some significance in 2001?

Not what i know. --Striver 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 19

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Citation 24

The cited link is brokent/not available right now. The cited fact states that amongst other countries, India and UK introduced anti-terrorist legislations. I can't figure out what legislations in these countries are being referred to.

Debunking Loose Change

Great video debunking the idiocy known as Loose Change.


plonk. Blue King
Just looking at the site name is enough to debunk this pile of crap ;) Elfguy 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?!

Is someone going to revert to the previous version? The content looks professional, but there isn't much of it! Wave of Mutilation 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

already taken care of... Generaleskimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a vandal that uses edit summaries to make it look like he is helping... - Adolphus79 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Alternative Theories Section

I've been away on other things, and haven't got to starting the Alternate Theories section yet. (Nothing mysterious has happened to me! ;) I think it is safe to start on a foreknowledge section, and a dissenting government officials section. I did look at what it was saying about that one Bin Laden tape on 9/11 myths.com, and admit that when you see the whole tape, some shots look considerably more like Bin Ladin than others. The bit about the ring, when Islam prohibits it is still out of place. That guy laughs a lot, too. Bin Laden doesn't seem to be the kind who has a good sense of humor, but it did seem a more informal situation. Still, the video is darker and has poor resolution, so that may account for some of the difficulty. I downloaded a low-resolution video from cnn.com of the second plane hitting the tower, and there is a red spot off-center from the plane just before it strikes, similar to those in Loose Change, but I guess I need to quit being cheap and just order some of the documentaries to get better resolution. I've read about half of a page on Able Danger somebody pointed out to me above, and it is interesting. This may not be quick, but as it is a minority view, we won't be able to get into much depth here anyway. Thanks for helping guard the Wikipedia content, BTW, guys. I hope there is a way to ban outright vandals, by IP mask, not userid. --ThaThinker 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to applaude your efforts, but fair warning: There are a number of bullies on this page who will fight tooth and nail to prevent any facts that dispute the official theory of events from being included. Instead of reasoned rationale debate, they will attempt to label you a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist and will marginalize your contributions by pointing you to the 9/11 Conspiracy theories page. I tried and failed to do this a few weeks back, eventually giving up in frustration. I even went so far as to post a warning to contributors such as yourself, but it has since been buried deep in the archives. [285]
Hopefully you have more success than I did Digiterata 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't resort to calling 9/11 conspiracists lunatic here, because that is against Wikipedia policy. However, "facts that dispute the official theory of events" is a misnomer. Such "facts" cited by the 9/11 Truth Movement are unsubstantiated or thoroughly refuted; please visit the links I provide in the Alternate Theories section above. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'alternate theories section' is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tom is right. There shouldn't even be any debate, for the reason he cites. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should address some disagreements over some of the particulars. It isn't screamingly obvious that every detail of the Commission Report is correct, in fact much of it is disputed and there are lots of omissions. Anything at all that doesn't jive perfectly with the official version goes to the "conspiracy theory" can? That ain't right. SkeenaR 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe the offical version is the only one that is encyclopedically correct as it pertains to this subject, and the other silliness is correctly placed in the article Tom Harrison pointed out.--MONGO 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't be true that the official version is the only explanation of events that can be encyclopedically correct as evidenced by the dozens of other articles that contain information which is in contradiction with the official version. SkeenaR 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article contains verifiable information from reliable sources. The "alternate theory" articles use information from unreliable sources, and much of it is original research -- the alternate theory articles are poor encyclopedic work and should be rewritten or deleted. Morton devonshire 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if these other versions are unsubstantiated and full of wide-eyed POV, then they are best left out of this article. WP:OR--MONGO 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Morton, that's just a bunch more opinion from you. I'm inclined to agree with Mongo on this..no silly unsubsustantiated wide-eyed POV OR. SkeenaR 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's my opinion that the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Seattle Times/PI et al. are reliable sources, and Alex Jones, 911truth.org, 911scholars.org, and other blogs are unreliable sources. That's Wikipedia policy, not merely my opinion. Check WP:RS and WP:V Morton devonshire 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've ever noticed but things don't necessarily have to come from Jones or "truth" or whoever to be in contradiction. The mainstream media and the gov't as reliable...what a joke...we always get the straight goods from them. Go get the WMD's...it'll be a cakewalk...flowers and hummers from the Iraqi girls. Oh yeah...the Taliban have been overthrown...Afghanistan is now an ally in the War On Terror...a member of the Coalition of the Willing. Do you believe that shit Morton? SkeenaR 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the resulting War on Terror didn't go as well as promised, but I seriosly have to ask: What does any of that have to do with editing this page?--DCAnderson 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about silly unsubstantiated wild eyed POV OR and reliable sources. Yes, they make promises too. SkeenaR 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well remember that all the things you are talking about there didn't exactly stay very well hidden. We can reliably say no WMDs were found. We can reliably say that Iraq has been a qaugmire. We can reliably say this because the media reports on it, this same media that is supposedly in the pockets of the government. The government isn't 100% reliable, but if they screwed up on 9/11, we'll hear about it. In fact we have heard about all the things they could have done better, that was essentially the whole point of the 9/11 commission.--DCAnderson 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I didn't write here to argue. I just wanted to say that this article is missing some encyclopedic info. But now that you mention it, no these things we were just referring to don't stay hidden forever, they manage to stay hidden just long enough to say "it's too late now". In the past, some of these types of things have been shown to happen by design. As to the point of the Commission, it's the opinion of some that it was to get to the bottom of things, and it's the opinion of others that it was meant to be a government sposored whitewash. SkeenaR 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long do they have to keep it a secret?--DCAnderson 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a secret, or which things are secret. But if you want an example that I've brought up on this page before about reliable information- all the unreliable, wide-eyed POV, agenda driven private sites under the control of one or two webmasters were trying explain in no uncertain terms that there were no WMD's in Iraq, while the MSM and gov't were cramming it hard enough down the throat of the public that most people suddenly thought it was a good idea to go on these cakewalk missions to spread freedom and democracy around the world and to the poor backwards dumbasses who attacked us because they hate us for such things. My only point is that I think we should rethink what we consider reliable and unreliable sources, or if we might use many different kinds of sources. I think we need to diversify this article a bit. Either that or it should be deleted and reposted at the State Department and DHS. SkeenaR 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you should consider how many non-conspiracy theorists there were who were pissed off because Bush chose to invade before allowing weapons inspections to take place. But no, it was just the conspiracy theorists who saw it coming. *roll eyes*--DCAnderson 23:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, and you are misrepresenting my comments. When I mentioned this example previously, I used Scott Ritter as the example of someone claiming that there were no WMD's there. Mostly, he was only taken seriously by alternative media rather than mainstream. He is not from the "wild eyed" crowd, nor were the "tin-hatters" the only ones to take him seriously, but for the most part the MSM pushed the govt line and the rest is history. Roll eyes he says. Does it hurt them to see this? You can't stand the fact that georgie and o'reilly were completely full of shit? That Tin Hatter Alex Jones was right that time? It doesn't matter anyway. I think I've made my point about the sources. SkeenaR 00:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

George Bush and Bill O'Reilly could both be described as "full of shit?" Stop the presses! My whole world is coming apart...gah... Papa Bear, nooooo!--DCAnderson 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere there's a chat board that wonders where everyone is. Tom Harrison Talk 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I'm done :) SkeenaR 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Different types of point of view

An observation that bears repeating: this article is Wikipedia's version of events, based on verifiable enyclopedic content; the US government version has its own article.

Some of the discussion seems to suggest all the content is opinion without being definitively true or false. That might apply to good-faith political opinions, but it does not apply to engineering opinions. Most objections come down to some variation of "why is a controlled demolition not being seriously considered?" The simple answer is that it does not merit consideration. A deliberate demolition of the towers while rescue efforts were on going would constitute pre-meditated mass murder, and if any evidence pointed to it, then without question a thorough investigation of the crime would be necessary. However, there is no such evidence. While it is true there are some observations consistent with a deliberate demolition (and these are almost all based the lowest-quality video and photographs), there are no examples of observations simultaneously consistent with demolition and not consistent with catastrophic structural failure.

Meanwhile, more valid, and useful, questions such as whether there was negligence before or political exploitation after go unaddressed. Peter Grey 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a little deceptive, since the government version of events did not begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. This article is POV mainly not because of POV statements, but because it seems to assume the government view is the right one, as your POV statement does, while giving no consideration for the opinions of a substantial minority. You assume if there was good evidence of it, that there would be any will to undertake a criminal investigation. If this was a conspiracy that reached, for example, into the highest levels of government, we might well NOT expect that. There are good and responsible reasons to suggest they were controlled demolitions. Numerous secondary explosions, both reported and measured, and what appear to be squibs shot from many angles, and pools of molten metal lasting for MONTHS are in fact not consistent with melting on account of what is basically kerosine. Is it my fault you haven't done your homework?

See: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The challenge is to see how much holds water once the dust settles.

Much I think would have to be changed about this page to remove support for the government theory. Better to have one introduction page that links to all the sub-pages. 9/11 skeptics have much better evidence than the people who characterize us as wearing tin-foil hats would give us credit for, at least in our opinion, and so long as there is a substantial minority that supports it, it deserves mention. I suppose somewhere, there is or should be a rule in wikipedia that it also stand some test of reasonableness, and so while I am not sure if the point is moot or not, it is the opinion of many of us that many such good arguments exist. In science, nothing is true or false, only more or less probable, BTW. This should not prevent one from reaching working conclusions, as in a forensic investigation. Of course, no forensic investigation is possible in the current case, as the evidence was unlawfully removed from the scene of the crime, and the investigation was underfunded, not allowed access to the crime scene, and perfunctory at best. Exploitation of 9/11 as an excuse to abridge our constitutional rights is sorta peripheral to the events themselves, but might be linked to from here. Any other pearls of skepticism to offer us as to problems with the official theory you'd care to volunteer? The Flat Earth theory gets at least mentioned on the Earth page, even though it has nothing anywhere near as tangible to point to in the way of evidence as the 9/11 critics do. If our complete exlusion with uncritical acceptance of the government position isn't POV, then I do not know what is. If we were cranks, we would deserve better. We would suggest that our evidence is much better than that.

If a lot of people wish to remove all disputed assertions from this and have POV sub-articles, as Mongo suggests, this is also possible. The downside is, how can we identify the person in first alleged Bin Laden confession tape, if we can't say he is, or he isn't Osama? What we have here works just fine for an official version, IMHO, and it only needs to be brought into balance with alternate theories, of which there is really only one, which I would formulate as follows: There are enough credible problems in the official version to call for a new truly independent, and far more public, open and comprehensive investigation into 9/11 than we have already had in the 9/11 Commission. I do this to solve the problem that there are people who consider themselves skeptics of the official version, but do not think the towers collapsed as a result of controlled demolition (i.e. LIHOP as opposed to MAHOP). They are generally happy to join with us in our call to bring these matters to the public attention, and hopefully, more independent and open investigation. Sunlight is, after all, the best disinfectant - for political matters anyway. One note about "Loose Change" I've come across - I don't believe he mentions the flashes just before or as the planes hit the buildings are in the second edition; only the first.

BTW guys, although it is a related debate, WMD's are really a different topic.

--ThaThinker 11:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight sums it up fairly well.--DCAnderson 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is clearly not applicable. SkeenaR 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. --ThaThinker 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is applicable in keeping theories regarding shape-shifting extra-dimensional reptoids and other such nonsense out of the article as it is the view of a tiny fringe minority. But it is not a tiny minority that disagrees with many different aspects of the official version and therefore some of these aspects deserve at least a mention here. SkeenaR 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, just remember, there is probably some dude out there (and possibly on Wikipedia) who feels just as pasionately about the shapeshifting reptiles as you feel about this.--DCAnderson 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
David Icke is the shapshifting reptoid conspiracy guy. His Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster is #55,318 on Amazon. Thierry Meyssan's 9/11: The Big Lie is #127,857. The Science & Engineering of Materials by Askeland and Phulé is #399,707. Tom Harrison Talk 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the point. It doesn't matter who feels passionately about what. I am not trying to prove that the official version is wrong. Also, I'm not trying to offend anybody no matter what they believe. The point is that the Undue Weight clause is not applicable per the reason I cited above. SkeenaR 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So how are they not a minority?--DCAnderson 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They may or may not be a minority, but they are not a "tiny minority". Read the policy. SkeenaR 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem pretty tiny, especially in comparison to the supporters of the mainstream view. They just seem more vocal than anything else.--DCAnderson 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They may or may not be a minority, but they are not a "tiny minority". They are a "significant minority". What you just stated above is pure opinion. Check the news, check google rankings on 9/11 related subjects, check the polls, and not just current ones. Read the policy. SkeenaR 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All I've seen of these guys so far is:

  1. An ocassional fluff piece news article.
  2. A handfull of sites owned by a handful of people who all copy/paste the same articles from each other to deliberately skew Google hits.
  3. A deliberately misleading poll put out by one of the above mentioned sites.

I'm not convinced that this is a signifigant minority. Vocal, yes. Signifigant, no.--DCAnderson 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Over half of the population wants the investigation reopened. Is that significant? Don't give an Ameriflag 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must be on the right track seeing as how you are now on the offensive with a bunch of POV and not one shred of evidence to back it up. On the other hand, I can find plenty of evidence supporting my assertions regarding the Undue Weight policy. You can go ahead and ask for it. I will give it to you. But I wonder if you will attempt another refute similar to the one above, thereby keeping us in an pointless merry-go-round. SkeenaR 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the talk pages on all the 9/11 articles pointless merry-go-rounds? But allright, show me your evidence, I've probably seen it and refuted it before on one of the merry-go-round passes.--DCAnderson 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN had a web poll (above) showing over 90% who doubted the official 9/11 story. A few years back, Zogby had one saying I think 49% of New Yorkers (I don't know if city or state, probably the former) thought the government was complicit in the attacks. A more recent article discusses another Zogby poll:

"According to a new Zogby poll, less than half of Americans are convinced that that the events of September 11 have been thoroughly investigated, RAW STORY has learned.

In the telephone survey of 1200 individuals, just 47% agreed that 'the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense." Almost as many, 45%, indicated they were more likely to agree "that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.'"

Found at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Less_than_half_of_Americans_satisfied_0523.html

In the interest of disclosure, the Zogby polls are funded by 911truth.org. I am not affiliated with either, nor any related formal organization, at least thus far. Although these numbers come from only one source plus a CNN web poll, I am aware of no polls by other organizations to refute it, either. Rather sizeable meetings on the subject have been staged around the country, and there are upcoming concerts in Austin on this theme. Although the television media refuse to acknowledge its existence, there is a substantial and growing minority that hold this view. I suggest that the pervasive media blackout itself should be evidence that something is wrong. I realize this is difficult news for many to hear, and that you may have nothing in your experience to relate it to. This is why I am being patient and deliberate with my request for balance in this article - to give you guys a little time to get over the denial phase that such a substantial minority exists, but is being blacked out from mainstream media. If we simply engage in edit wars, it'll be harder for us to get anything figured out. --ThaThinker 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Web polls are unreliable.
  2. Both Zogby polls are deliberately misleading and put out by 9/11truth.org.
  3. Round-and-round we go.--DCAnderson 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You think you can wave a magic wand, and say that those polls have no evidential value? It is the only evidence we have on the subject. It is POV to leave out a substantial minority. Do you care to offer evidence to refute me, or can we just disregard you as argumentative? I have no love of disagreeing with people without evidence. I don't intend to participate in such debates. The number of people posting here in support of better balance should also qualify as evidence. Where is your basis for saying the polls are misleading? The thrust of them is pretty obvious. Ironic, isn't it, that you claim to be a Wikipedian against censorship. --ThaThinker 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are three or four CNN polls, at least two Zogby polls that you obviously don't give credibility too, but you would have to prove they are invalid(their results are more scientific than your opinion), there are some other polls which I could look up, there are scientists, military experts, government officials, computer experts, journalists, intelligence experts, many of whom are distinguished professionals in their fields with excellent credentials. There have been many mainstream news articles and televion programs regarding this, especially outside of the United States(such as Canada). Can you just admit that the minority is significant and that some of the disagreements should be presented in the article? Or you want sources on this(like you haven't seen them-and would it make a difference to you). SkeenaR 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(To Thinker)Wait so your argument is that because your evidence of a significant minority is scarce and not particularly reliable, we should give you guys a handicap just to be fair? And that we should turn a blind-eye to WP:NPOV#Undue weight and other policy just because a lot of single purpose editors come on here and bitch and moan? And that the onus should not be on you guys to provide evidence to prove your point, but that it is on us to provide evidence to disprove it?
Right.--DCAnderson 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What about me? I don't I get any baseless rhetoric from you? We have plenty of evidence. If it's evidence regarding the Undue Weight policy we have plenty and you know it. SkeenaR 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to spend a lot of time retreading the same ground, here are the threads on other pages where that Zogby poll is discussed:

No, that's exactly what you are doing, taking us in another circle. I think the next step is to start adding material, sources and citing policy as it's being done to make sure there are no violations. I am well aware of my limits and boundaries as an editor and I hope others are as well. It looks like this will be a bumpy ride for any who take on the challenge of NPOV'ing this article. SkeenaR 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop reading those foolish conspiracy theory websites...they will warp your mind.--MONGO 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"No, that's exactly what you are doing, taking us in another circle."

And you guys are innocent of this? Cause the Zogby poll is a totally new argument for inclusion.--DCAnderson 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was sarcasm, for the curious. I am not interested in keeping this thread going indefinitely. You tried to characterize the minority as insignificant, and I responded, not knowing of your research. New or old, its still evidence. Google on 9/11 and truth, or 9/11 and conspiracy, and you will find MILLIONS of hits, with many of the top ones being critical of the official version. This is evidence too. Nitpicking at the Zogby polls can't make them vanish completely, until we have them by other organizations. The fact that we don't should also seem suspicious to you. The news blackout, and the lack of other polls on the subject doesn't seems suspicious to you? I've given you three evidential items: pools, google hits, and posters here, and you only try to say they are not evidence. --ThaThinker 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

News blackout and lack of other polls? Are you sure it's a cover up or (drumroll) it just isn't significant.--DCAnderson 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not evidence. Evidence of conspiracy theories belongs on the corresponding page. Evidence supporting conspiracy theories (the demolition ones, at least) has not been found. There is evidence supporting the mainstream account, there is none indicating demolition - it's that simple. Peter Grey 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV? Speculation?

I'm referring to claims such as "nineteen men affiliated with Al-Qaeda hijacked two commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center, causing its collapse" and similar claims. It has not been proven that the "hijackers" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda (in fact some of the alleged hijackers are still alive), and whether or not the planes alone caused the collapse of the towers is likewise up for debate. Just because the government says one thing doesn't discredit anyone who says the opposite. There are several similar claims made throughout the article. NPOV demands that we do not take the patriotic point of view, and make sure it is known that the government's report on the 9/11 attacks are speculatory at best. Don't give an Ameriflag 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll take out all the facts and add nonsense instead.--MONGO 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has asked for that. What is fact and what is nonsense seems to be disputed. What seems beyond dispute, is that a substantial minority is being censored from this page. For Alternate Theories to be added to this page, no removal of "facts" which we would not label as such, is needed. To keep them on a separate page, and remove all government version only statements from this one is the only choice that would require removing anything, unless you guys decide to remove details from the official story. --ThaThinker 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and who are you going to use as references for these "alternative theories"?--MONGO 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this already. Mainstream sources such as mainstream news items, Congressional websites and the Congressional record, and mainstream documentaries. --ThaThinker 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You want nonsense? Then argue that a plane can singlehandedly destroy a steel-framed building. And when people see through that shit, just blame it on "weird construction". Don't give an Ameriflag 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy & Balance

This article is nothing more than spin. Any amendments made adding in "verifiable" information contradicting the US government's version of events, is simply deleted.

This article is not "verifiaable information"...it is a one-sided piece composed of selected propaganda.

Okay...time for a little snack so you feel better.--MONGO 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but unlike you, I'm not against the idea of posting the government's version as a possible theory; I simply want all of the possible theories to be reported in this article. None of them necessarily as fact. I don't want one (1) of the possible theories to be written as fact and the others to be arbitrarily dismissed as conspiracy theories. The term conspiracy theory is just a blanket assertion that the government and people like you like to hide behind so you don't have to give credibility to anything we say. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason that 9/11 conspiracy theories are quickly dismissed is because they have been trivially refuted by numerous independent researchers, i.e. they have been demonstrated to be false. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements that are held by a significant minority. SkeenaR 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrated by whom to be false? You listen to me, there's no way a 180-story steel framed building's going down because of a plane flying into it.
Try 110 stories. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
They were designed to withstand that.
From FEMA: The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no way a Boeing 757 vaporized itself at the Pentagon. That's scientifically impossible. Kerosene simply does not get hot enough.
There were plenty of 757 remains (fuselage, wheel rim, compressor rotor, engine, door, landing gear, lettered debris, etc.) that were photographed at the site so your statement is misleading. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are there all these questions that are still unanswered? Who warned Mayor Brown not to fly on September 11?

Brown, to anyone in the plot, was obviously in no danger and so the warning was unnecessary if it was by a conspirator. Brown said it was nothing extraordinary and that's why he chose to fly! There was a worldwide Sept. 7 warning about terrorist attacks overseas, that one of Brown's security people informed him about just as routine would have it. Bottom line: the person who warned Mr. Brown had no clue that 9/11 would happen. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If a 757 hit the Pentagon, why won't the FBI release the videotapes taken from surveiilance cameras which would prove the truth? Why did the 757 that hit the Pentagon knock light poles out of the ground when other planes that have hit light poles got their wings torn apart? Why was there molten steel at ground zero when the fires didn't get hot enough to melt steel? Why was all of the debris immediately trucked off of the scene and destroyed before it could be proven that no explosives were present in the columns? If the government has nothing to hide, why don't they just tell us these things? Don't give an Ameriflag 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone quoted FEMA: "The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph AS IT APPROACHED AN AIRPORT; (!) the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph UPON IMPACT" - - - But this is just another sleazy presentation of the least relevant facts, because the early Boeing 707s had a CRUISE SPEED of 591 mph - THE SAME IMPACT SPEED AS THE HIGHEST VELOCITY 767! And the 767 is only 14,000 pounds heavier than the 707! And the 767s weren't FULLY-LOADED! And the WTC RESIDENT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, Frank DeMartini, who was initially "hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center" (NYT paid notices, obituaries), said, in an interview broadcast on the History Channel, January 2001:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building PROBABLY COULD SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. IT REALLY DOES NOTHING to the screen netting." 58.106.69.176 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to chill out?

I'm not the one getting upset about an "allegedly" being placed where it belongs, because there is as much evidence that the hijackers were Al-Qaeda as there is that they werne't. We're here posting facts, not propaganda. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That the hijackers were trained al Qaeda is a proven fact. Who do you think they were? -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With edit summaries like:

  • "Don't rv war here - some of the attackers are alive. How can you claim to be a Wikipedian and still want to say such things as fact?"
  • "THERE IS NO PROOF!! STOP IT!"

the answer is, yes, you need to chill.--DCAnderson 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The latter, yes. But the former (which was the latter chronologically)? How is that not chill? What['s wrong with saying "allegedly" anyway? Which are you more afraid of, being branded a terrorist, or a liar? Don't give an Ameriflag 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"How is that not chill?"

"How can you claim to be a Wikipedian.."
WP:NPA

"What['s wrong with saying "allegedly" anyway?"

No significant group that says otherwise. Plus, Bin Laden admitted to it repeatedly.

"Which are you more afraid of, being branded a terrorist, or a liar?"

???--DCAnderson 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


"No significant group that says otherwise."

Oh, we're not significant is that right? We're just fruitcake conspiracy theorists who are paranoid about little green men, is that right?

"Plus, Bin Laden admitted to it repeatedly"

It was never proven to be him. Most of the time his confessions are in the form of extremely poor video or completely audio recordings. The first video depicts a guy who doesn't even look like Bin Laden, wore a gold ring, and wrote with his right hand. He's also claimed that it wasn't him. If you think this is evidence, then maybe the fruitcake is you. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe bin Laden is a righty or ambidextrous and the FBI is simply mistaken! There is another video of bin Laden writing with his right hand and there are plenty of videos showing a person who is undeniably OBL wearing a gold ring! Bin Laden wasn't interviewed personally, so the Taliban could've written the denial, maybe to call into question justification for the Afghan war. Bin Laden at the time told an interviewer to turn off the tape recorder and then told him that he was responsible. Besides the person who is clearly bin Laden in the 12/13/01 video, there are other al Qaeda leaders. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9/11 numerous times. There have been 16+ explicit post-9/11 claims of responsibility for 9/11 by al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc. following his 9/16/01 "denial":

-10/7/01 Osama bin Laden [288] -10/9/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [289] -10/14/01 Osama bin Laden [290] -10/27/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [291] -2/02 Osama bin Laden [292] -4/02 Ahmed Alhaznawi and other 9/11 hijackers – these martyrdom videos contradict the claim that the hijackers are still alive, their identities were stolen, etc. [293] -9/10/02 Osama bin Laden and others [294] -9/02 Ayman Al Zawahiri [295] -10/02 Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed [296] -3/03 Osama bin Laden [297] -9/21/03 Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj [298] -8/04 Abu Jandal [299] -10/30/04 Osama bin Laden [300] -9/12/05 Adam Gadahn [301] -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't some blog, so go peddle your baloney elsewhere. Get an education first so you don't appear so ignorant.--MONGO 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I think your constant and unnecessary badgering of the conspiracy theorists on this page contributes to the difficulty we seem to have keeping things civil. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 05:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, so trolls that post nonsense here are to be accorded equal footing with someone that presents an intelligent and sane opinion on how to improve the article? Did you have something constructive to add?--MONGO 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll hear you out Mongo, when your not calling people trolls or flinging abbreviations at everyone. SkeenaR 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.--MONGO 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to use information in accordance with policy and I am open to reasonable discussion. Are you? SkeenaR 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not if you intend to cite POV websites that are controlled by a few contributors. Which historically have been what you seem to draw your conclusions from.--MONGO 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm not sure which conclusions your talking about unless you are referring to my comments about the Undue Weight policy. There are disagreements with the material in this article that are held by a significant minority and they they have to be presented according to policy. SkeenaR 08:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a few folks that come here and argue the same stuff, and the same issues are demostrated. If there was any strength to your minority argument, then the conspiratorial issues would garner a lot more mainstream press and other reputable reference based sources. Just because you may believe that the events of 9/11 do not jive with the known evidence, does not mean that those that agree with you are more than an insignificant minority.--MONGO 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, your comments about mainstream press coverage are pure opinion. I have yet to see you legitimatley dispute any point made about the Undue Weight policy. SkeenaR 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so long as your junk science looniness stays out of these articles, I am content. You can ramble on all you want on the talk pages, until of course you get disruptive. Expect to find all POV pushers of nonsense blocked in due time.--MONGO 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. There needs to be more information in the article and I will put it there. I'm not trying to push pov, or "junk science". Please tell me why you called me a "looney". SkeenaR 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zogby poll for instance...it was solicited by a conspiracy theorists...we have discussed this matter, ad nauseum, have we not? If not on this page, certainly on others. You are Canadian are you not...see Loonie.--MONGO 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Used to be that I felt like the odd-man-out here. Skee-man, don't take it so seriously, it's just effing Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 07:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Morton, but everythings cool. I could go play PS2 or something but I find this more enjoyable believe it or not. My girlfriend left me for Stephen Harper(better not tell his wife) SkeenaR 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is kinda cute. Morton devonshire 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in that Dick Cheney-as-alien-lizard-man kinda way. Yeesch! MortonsSockpuppet 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility lost?

What is going on here? Why the name calling, the vituperatives and other nonsense? If there are conspiracy theories and these are described in the article as such, what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

vituperative-"Using, containing, or marked by harshly abusive censure." SkeenaR 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Omitted Material and Political Bias

There are a substantial amount of facts and associated material, from verifiable sources, that is not covered in this article. It presents an "glossed over" version of events by omitting all the incosistancies and the implications. Not to mention isolating 9/11 attacks from the Global context over the last 40 years.

As such, it falls under the catagory of propaganda, instead of a comprehensive answer from a "global encyclopedia".

This is not a political tool.

Give some examples, but not ones that have long been discredited. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. We appreciate that. We can give you plenty. --ThaThinker 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thus far you haven't given any facts contradicting the official account. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As Thinker said "What is fact and what is nonsense seems to be disputed. What seems beyond dispute, is that a substantial minority is being censored from this page." SkeenaR 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The "substantial minority's" claims have been definitively debunked and yet they are free to engage in discussion on this talk page or contribute to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. No one has any trouble finding that page if they are interested. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The supposed 'evidence' is based on flawed (if not outright dishonest) engineering. Engineering conclusions can be challenged on their scientific merits, but they are not open to political debate. Political opinions (those in good faith, at least) should be respected, but errors of fact should not. Peter Grey 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether they've been debunked or not is not at issue. The Flat Earth theory is not excluded from the Earth page. This theory has more of substance to it than that one, and yet you guys keep this page POV, and exclude it. It is only the opinion of the majority that these theories have been debunked, and many of them haven't studied the subject very extensively; but that does not justify this idea not being mentioned on this page. This page is POV, and you are unwilling to allow such facts as may exist that might tend to undermine the official point of view to be mentioned on this page. I think we are at a POV impasse. I mean, on you guys' self description, you guys say how you're POV against 911 "conspriacy theoriests", and that is fine and well, but the Wikipeda requires you share "your" page with those of other viewpoints, especially when it is the main article on those events. There is substantial evidence of forewarnings suppressed by the 9/11 Commission, many former government officials and agents have come out and denounced the official version, and all those secondary explosions reported by people just before the buildings collapsed, that aren't being mentioned here, and should be. --ThaThinker 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But we are people who have studied it extensively. I used to be a 9/11 conspiracist and I am ashamed to say that I got a 9/11 Truth award for "young newcomers." I held these views for over 20 months and spent hours a day researching! After more research and a look at the other side I realized that my 9/11 conspiracism was wrong and I recanted it. I stress again that items like controlled demolition/no 757 at the Pentagon/remote control planes/living hijackers/fake phone calls/Flight 93 shootdown are not facts! The issues you mention have their own pages and again they are easily accessible and not disguised or hidden or anything like that. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
From Earth:

"A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (50 meter) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.

Prior to the introduction of space flight, these inaccurate beliefs were countered with deductions based on observations of the secondary effects of the Earth's shape and parallels drawn with the shape of other planets."
So it gets four sentences. One of them says how the theories are mocked.
This page:

"Since the attacks, various conspiracy theories have emerged. These include speculation that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, or that they actually planned the attacks. Some of those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

Also gets four sentences. All of them are neutral.--DCAnderson 05:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. It does mention it, but this idea is more subsantial than four sentences. This doesn't begin to describe the fishy aspects of the attacks. If 45% of the people in the Zogby poll believe something is fishy about the idea, the provide me another poll, or else we should at least get about 20%. This idea has much more going for it than you give it credit for: Able Danger, the Pheonix Memo, Mousoui reported on an expired visa by FBI agents in Minnisota, the FBI agents who warned David Schippers, former lead councel in Bill Clinton's impeachment being warned, the mayor of San Francisco being reportedly warned by Condi Rice, as the Chronicle says it was told on Pacifica Radio. All these things are factual, and have not been debunked, whatever the ultimate judgment of history on the matter. Can't you guys quit playing politics, and let a more balanced view emerge? Again, the Steering Committee of the Families of the 9/11 Victims published a list of questions, many of which weren't even addressed by th 9/11 Commission at all. Can't you respect their wishes? --ThaThinker 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Al the things you mention appear in 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is pretty generous under WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--DCAnderson 05:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

These things are included in detail in that article as per the title. In this article, things that are unverifiable, alleged or disputed must be presented as such according to policy. SkeenaR 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples?--DCAnderson 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So lets begin with things that seem factual, and go from there. --ThaThinker 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless people have some favorites, which might seem pov, I suggest working our way down the page from top to bottom. SkeenaR 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll check for junk like self references first. That didn't take long. SkeenaR 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no self references allowed as per policy. Being the big bug on policy I thought you knew that. SkeenaR 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And if some of us check for mistakes like that while others look for refrences, we will speed the process of improving this article. SkeenaR 05:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but there were three citations for that statement.--DCAnderson 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool DC, we can add stuff later if we need to. We should check for sources and remove garbage in the meantime. I hope your sudden removal of that other piece wasn't some kind of retaliation. I'm assuming good faith. SkeenaR 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I removed [302] believe me it wasn't retaliation. Somebody had added it earlier tonight, and it was bugging me.--DCAnderson 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to make this an excercise in pedanticism, but I was cited myself for a violation by providing a link exactly like what you just did in a different article. What is the difference between a self-refrence and a fixed internal link? SkeenaR 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That wasn't a citation, that was an internal link. They're what makes Wikipedia work. I don't know what incident you're talking about, but I don't see how it is relevant here.--DCAnderson 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy man, I just remember somebody said we can't use wikipedia as a self reference and I think they are right. If I was making a mistake in this case, that's not a problem, I just wanted some clarification on that. SkeenaR 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. You were right. SkeenaR 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page should be archived soon because it is becoming too long. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the word "censure" appears here too many times for people to see. SkeenaR 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

goes up. As per discussion the neutrality of this article is disputed because of some unverified facts being presented as verified and because of ommisions of verifiable material that is in contradiction with some information presented here. SkeenaR 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Or I'll take it down. Let's try for progress first. SkeenaR 06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

hijackers' letter

You removed all this detail, with refs, along with my (okay, it was lengthy essaying, just striving for balance) explanation, etc. But I think it's pretty important, since this 9/11 start page has virtually nothing about the guys who actually did it. Maybe the blockquote can go in ref notes, since it's a bit long? Seems a disservice to not even mention the letter in the article. Also, there needs to be something core like this to counter all the wrong western bias about cause and effect (former troops in SA, U.S. support of Israel, etc.) that is so prevalent in the article, but that is just western wishful thinking, that if only we could learn how to appease them enough, they would stop attacking us, you know. The hijackers' letter gives better insight into what is really in their heads about flying planes into buildings, just presented as is, without commentary. So, here it is,

On September 28, 2001, the FBI held a Press Conference, during which they released an untranslated handwritten 4-page "hijackers' letter" written in Arabic and found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included Islamic prayers, instructions for a last night of life, and a practical checklist of final reminders for the mission. [5] translated: [6] The British newspaper The Observer published this translation, provided for The New York Times by Capital Communications Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm, and by Imad Musa, a translator. The writer of the letter may not be known. But clearly, it was found in multiple locations, and so the text was of importance to at least several of the hijackers, on the last day. Some notable excerpts:

..."Make an oath to die and renew your intentions..."... "Check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. (You must make your knife sharp and must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter). " ... "All of their equipment and gates and technology will not prevent, nor harm, except by God's will. The believers do not fear such things. ..." ... "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: 'Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.' Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, 'Come hither, friend of God.' They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing..." ... "If you slaughter, do not cause the discomfort of those you are killing, because this is one of the practices of the prophet, peace be upon him..." ... "Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake..." ... "Then implement the way of the prophet in taking prisoners. Take prisoners and kill them. As Almighty God said: 'No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood... " ... "How beautiful it is for one to read God's words, such as: 'And those who prefer the afterlife over this world should fight for the sake of God.' And His words: 'Do not suppose that those who are killed for the sake of God are dead; they are alive ... '." ... "Either end your life while praying, seconds before the target, or make your last words: 'There is no God but God, Muhammad is His messenger'."

...end of hijackers' letter excerpts. So, does at least some well-deserved part of this go back in? Steven Russell 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe check out Islamofascism or try adding a link to that article. SkeenaR 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably fit into either of these articles:


My observation: I came to this article looking for the basics: Who, What, Where, When, Why. Instead, I find myself wading through a lot of material that has to do with all sorts of extraneous concepts, alternative theories, long-term aftermaths entirely outside of Manhattan, investigations, analyses, and below, yet more argument about even further far afield things to put in here. Granted, some of it belongs, but not at the expense of burying or moving off-page the elements of Who, What, Where, When, and Why. And How.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So I produced excerpts of a letter, which was publicly released with great fanfare into the mainstream, no more than two and a half weeks later, by the U.S. government, a letter that the "Who" (19 ARAB hijackers, so where is the Template:911hijack here?) had on their persons, on the day of (the "When", the very day) the attacks (the "What", that is, 50-90% of this article should be nothing more than full expansion of the mainstream proven events themselves, such as, for instance, that the letter was on the person of at least two of the hijackers), one left in the car at the airport (the "Where", airport parking lot, on the plane, in the hotel room), and the other in the Flight 93 plane upon impact, and a third left in Atta's suitcase the night before, yet there is no room here for any of this "What" or "Where" about the letter? The "Why" is best covered on the day of the attack in the place of the attack by the attackers in the very words that they left to explain themselves, not for us as readers, but for themselves as readers explaining to themselves and justifying to themselves WHY they were flying planes into buildings. It's as close as anybody is ever going to get to the inside of their heads.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So frankly, the suggestions that a better place for the letter is somewhere off the main page strikes me as odd. Granted, it could use some better presentation, but this is where such material belongs. Again, it was a critical element on the persons of the attackers as they attacked and it explained their reasonings. And the source is highly public, highly governmental, highly verifiable, and highly mainstream. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be above all, full of mainstream reputability, and not merely a balance-counterbalance of every side argument and obscure minority theory in the entire universe of fringe ideas. Just my observation, that this article has become much of the latter, and less of the former.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


--ThaThinker 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Proposed Alternative Theories Section

Outline of Proposed Alternative Theories Section:

I. Reports of Foreknowledge
        Abel Danger - Intelligence program which had identified Mohammed Atta and probable 
            terror cell in Brooklin before 9/11 was blocked from being reported to the FBI.
        The Pheonix Memo - A document released under the Freedom of Information Act has
            AZ FBI agent writing report about Osama probable associated persons at flight 
            school, and urgently urges investigation of other flight schools as well
        Cathleen Rowley - Minneapolis FBI agent reports Moussaoui suspected as terrorist by
            flight instructor, and wanted by Al Qaeda in Paris, and is ignored.
        David Schippers - lead councel for Clinton's impeachment, says FBI agents were warning 
            impending attack, and getting ignored.  One said the date of the attack was widely 
            known within FBI
        Henry Waxman - Requested yet other foreknowledge documents from 9/11 Commission, but 
            despite his being on the Government Reform Committee, was denied
        Sibel Edmunds - Extensive article appeared in Vanity Fair about being gagged with 
            important 9/11 information.
        (Many others exist, but space prevents all being listed.)
II. Background Information
        Bin Laden at first denies responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.  The Pentagon then 
            releases a video with poor resolution in which he seems to confess, except many 
            of the things in the sub-titles are not in original Arabic.  Government sources 
            subsequently released an audio only confession by Bin Laden.
        PNAC document in 2000 suggests "a new Pearl Harbor-like event" might accelerate  
            U.S. plans in the Mideast
        Condi Rice says "we" had no idea Al-Qaeda might attack by airplanes, despite FAA and 
            other drills for just such a scenario.  She later changes this to "I" had no idea 
            they might attack by airplanes, leaving the question of who else knew of these 
            drills open.
        Link to list of serious questions about 9/11 by the Steering Committee of the Families 
            of the 9/11 Victims
III. Peculiar aspects of the attacks
        The two towers collapsed suddenly, at nearly free-fall speed, one a little under an hour,
            the other a little over an hour later.  By this time, at least one of the fires had 
            subsided enough for people to stand in the gaping hole left by the plane, awaiting 
            rescue.  When each building in its time collapsed, each collapsed straight down, 
            causing minimal damage to nearby buildings.
        Reports of secondary explosions before towers fell in local papers, and in firemen's 
            communications
        Wreckage removed quickly after underfunded investigation
        Designer of towers said buidlings were built to withstand impact of one, and could 
            probably survive six impacts of 707's
        No other structural steel buildings have ever collapsed on account of fire
        Many of supposed 9/11 attackers reported alive
        (Future expansion: the flashes of light on WTC1 and WTC2 just before the planes hit)
        Building Seven also collapses neatly later that day at 4:00PM, almost demolition style,
            killing workers still in building, reportedly on accout of fire
        Reports of a white jet and mid-air explosion, when flight 93 reportedly crashed 
            into the ground 
        Two videos of Pentagon attack fail to produce convincing evidence of a Boeing
IV. Dissenting government officials, experts and celebreties who have come forward
       Five former government officials or important appointees have denounced the official story. 
         By way of contrast, Nixon officials went public on Watergate only after intense 
         Congressional investigation.
           David Bowman -  Claims to have been Director of Advanced Space Programs 
               Development for the Air Force Space Division until 1978 under Carter and Ford 
               (and no official source has yet repudiated this claim), says concerning new 
               intereptor flight procedures issued just before 9/11 (which newly required 
               administration officials in order to OK not just shoot-downs, but any and all 
               interceptions), if they had only have done nothing, the attacks would never have 
               succeeded.  He calls actions that allowed it to happen, treason.  Calls Bush 
               a renegade president.
           Ray McGovern - Former CIA analyst, used to prepare Reagan's and then Bush Sr.'s 
               Presidential Daily Briefs, calls for Bush Jr's resignation over 9/11.
           Former FBI Director Louis Freeh - 9/11 was "an inside job"
           Morgan Reynolds - Former cheif economist at Bush Jr.'s Dept. of Labor, recenty 
               resigned, and said he thought 9/11 was an inside job
           Sgt. Eric Haney - founder of the Army's elite Delta Force unit, says "The reasons of 
               this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated."
       Leon Minetta - Places Cheney at control center of the Pentagon when plane hit, 
           contradicting Cheney's own account
       Russ Whittenberg - Former Air Force and airline pilot, says Pentagon maneuver impossible 
           for an inexperienced pilot
       Sampling of celebreties who have denounced the official account of 9/11 - Charlie Sheen, 
           Ed Asner, Sharon Stone, Ed Beagley (of St. Elsewhere), James Woods (117 major film 
           credits), and Dean Haglund (the X-Files).
The towers did not fall at free-fall speed; just watch the videos of the collapses. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if an item has been debunked, that does not justify censoring it. Things which tend to debunk it can be listed in this section as well. This should allow this article to include opinions of a significant minority who does not feel that most of these items have been debunked. Whether many of them are right or not, we feel we cannot know until a more thorough investigation is completed. --ThaThinker 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, lies and falsehoods should be included, and half truths should be listed in this section as well. Everything you posted is a lie or mistruth...but the best - Dean Haglund as Agent Moulder? I think David Duchovny might be upset. --Mmx1 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If something is non-notable or has been debunked, it belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Everything you list can allready be found there.--DCAnderson 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please,no. I understand your point, but if something is non-notable or has been debunked it belongs on his blog, not 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is, at least in theory, part of the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Madrid Windsor tower endured a partial collapse when the steel melted due to fire. See this picture. The tower did not totally collapse because its structural strength due to concrete was much greater than that of WTC 1, 2, and 7. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Reports of explosions." Never mind the fact that the sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that many things that are there, do not belong there. For example, whether Abel Danger comes out to be true or not, ultimately, we have people that said it. It is in the Congressional Record. It's a matter of public knowledge. I don't think a definitive investigation has ever been completed, nor has it been satisfactorilly been debunked. If so, tell me where. It certainly does not belong on a page only for debunked theories, at least as yet. No lies, at least on my part anyway, but that was a mistake. My apologies to David Duchovny. These are the things that MUST be included, or this article is BAD POV. Why do you fear having lies and falsehoods here, if it is a significant point of view, and the information that debunks it is here? I was being generous. I maintain that you can't debunk that, e.g. Charlie Sheen or these other people denounced the official story, because even mainstream press says thay did. What is it issue is whether they are right, and I say, lets present the facts, and let the people decide for themselves. Why are you afraid of telling both sides of the story? --ThaThinker 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Kevin Ryan did not certify steel for UL....he tested water quality. Robert(not david) Bowman did not direct Star Wars. He directed some little program prior to Star Wars with no direct link. Morgan Reynolds was an economist at the Bureau of Labor, not the "head". The fires at WTC were not "under control" ... practically nothing was done about the fires and I doubt the firefighters even reached it before the word came to get out. Designer of towers said they would withstand "one" 707, a smaller plane. No workers in WTC 7 when it collapsed. I could go on and on. The rest is heresay and speculation

You apparently aren't in the same reality I'm in. --Mmx1 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is good. Lets update my outline with corrected versions of these events, and get such facts as remain standing, up. I want to be disabused of any illusions. This does not entirely exempt Bowman's expertise, as I know I heard him claim to be an interceptor pilot, and he knew what the proceedures used to be, and what they were changed to. --ThaThinker 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

When Bowman was a pilot....Kennedy was President, bell-bottoms were in fashion, and a computer took up a room. He has been retired for 30 years and has not worked in the defense sphere. It's a stretch to say he knows what the current procedures are. He also has a credibility problem, as half the medals he claims to have won don't exist, and he has been caught lying about his SAME medals. --Mmx1 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the statements from your outline and my opinions on them: "PNAC document suggests "a new Pearl Harbor-like event might accelerate U.S. plans in the Mideast"

  • While it could be argued that PNAC benifited politically from 9/11, there is no reliable source that indicates that they had any part in causing it. Mentioning them and this memo in this article is essentially Original Research as the memo says nothing about 9/11.

"Bin Laden at first denies responsibility for the 9/11 attacks."

This is true and I see no particualr reason not to mention it. (In fact it allready is mentioned)

"a video with poor resolution in which he seems to confess, except many of the things in the sub-titles are not in original Arabic."

This however is essentially Original research.

"Link to list of serious questions about 9/11 by the Steering Committee of the Families of the 9/11 Victims"

Non-notable fringe group, mentioned in other articles as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Most of the things regarding the WTC under section III are mischarecterizations from Steven E. Jones. He is most definitely a fringe minority, and he is discussed in other articles. His theories allready do get a one sentence mention in this article.

"Reports of a white jet and mid-air explosion, when flight 93 (?) reportedly crashed into the ground"

Throw me a link to this one.

Most of the celebrities are not worth mentioning, as they are not really experts on anything.--DCAnderson 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Bowman says: "former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations". Director. The Wikipedia page on Bowman says nothing about these non-existent medals, only listing ones he received. The idea that the "new Pearl Harbor" statement refers to 9/11 is NOT original with me. The idea that the the first confession video is of dubious quality is NOT original with me. Overseas papers ran a story on how a number of the phrases the Pentagon said were there, in the subtitles, were not there. I haven't run across Stephen E. Jones, and I've seen a lot of these ideas MANY places. If I found a flake that supported the official version, should we dismiss it? I'll have to study some more to come to my own conclusion on Ryan's expertise, but we might could replace that with a better item. Eric Haney, founder of the Army's elite Delta Force unit, who says the war on terrorism is bogus would be a good substitute. At first, I thought there was a relevency problem, but then again, the War on Terror began with the 9/11 attacks. A number of the items on the "9/11 conspiracy theories" DO seem factual, whether their claims can ultimately be verified or will be refuted. If that is a page for debunked items, the best of them need representation here. Also, mention of what appear to be squibs was left of my outline. It is really presented for other 9/11 skeptics and 9/11 skeptic debunkers as a starting point for fixing this page's POV problem. The whole section need not be that long, as most items need only a sentence or two. Then, I think most 9/11 skeptics will agree, the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" page has a POV title, and should somehow be subsumed as a sub-page of Alternate Theories, and/or a new Debunked Theories and Hypotheses page. We should have mention of the cream of the crop items on this page, where they haven't been debunked. Although celebreties are not experts, we still think it is important for the public to know that many are coming forward. Can better items be found, and some of these ideas debunked? Probably. Are there better points that could be brought out, which should get precidence over some here? Probably. Yet, most of them remain viable, at the end of the day, and are being censored, against Wikipedia policy, from this page. --ThaThinker 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the inclusion of any "alternative theories" section, as we already have a 9/11 conspiracy theories article on Wikipedia. In addition, none of the alternative theories can be verified by reputable sources (see WP:RS), nor are they verifiable (see WP:V) -- that's the reason they're over at 9/11 conspiracy theories, because it's encyclopedic to describe unverifiable conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, but not encyclopedic to describe them as factual. In contrast, all of the information in this article can be verified through reputable, objective sources. It's not censorship, it's Wikipedia policy that drives this. Morton devonshire 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that they are not verifiable. They are. People have built scale model mockups of the floor sections of the WTC, to see if they can be burned by flames. Much of this stuff IS verifiable, if 9/11 terrorists here in the US if FBI agents had already been reported to superiors. Nice try. Invalid agrument for exclusion. It IS verifiable if various people denounced the official theory. --ThaThinker 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Who built these models? If you're talking about the Corus study (just a guess) that study was started way before 9/11, and had nothing to do with WTC.--DCAnderson 01:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramifications of 9/11, as a proposed major split

As stated above, this article neees to get WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY back to basics, WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, and HOW. Just basic irrefutable facts, highly mainstream, highly verifiable and highly reputable. So I propose a major split: Essentially the entire bottom half of this article deals with almost extraneous ideas that spring off of the attack itself. The attack is the attack, nothing more, as the home page here for this whole thing. This should be the place where people go on Wikipedia to get the very basics, and nothing more. So my proposal for the split of all the bottom half extraneous material that is currently there: It all sticks together cohesively as "Ramifications of 9-11." Everything from cleanups, speeches, wars on terror, conspiracy theories, backstories, further agendas, world opinions, and on and on and on in a neverending series of subarticles. But just keep this basic page to the fundamental five W's, and the H. Feedback, please.Steven Russell 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy junk deserves almost zero attention and should be merely linked to, as I think you are suggesting. I agree that the letters and Atta info deservesa brief mention, but it appears to qualify as an article unto itself, with a link from here perhaps. Going into major detials of the letter would distract us from the focus.--MONGO 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Granted that different excerpts from the letter belong to different articles or areas. My main point is that it is a key fact of the day of the attack in the place by the persons, and yet it gets entirely obliterated here in lieu of extraneous material such as conspiracy theories. I do like the "Ramifications" as a catchall title to branch all of that other stuff off of. As I said, I come here looking for the BASIC knowledge about that day, place, persons, time, and method. I had a heck of a time even finding the list of attackers, which of all places should have been here.Steven Russell 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Context IS important. WWII is not just the battles, but also the causes, and a huge section on the aftermath. Some pages like the Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks should be better linked, but the current division of content is appropriate.--Mmx1 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I could see that, but not excluding the opinions of a signficiant minority to the extent that they are treated as a tiny minority on this page. It really comes off sounding one-sided. --ThaThinker 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hardcore Evidence

I've been running an analysis of the claims made by Professor Steven Jones', Professor of Physics at BYU and former principle scientist for Muon catalysed fusion with the US Department of Energy.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University,

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

This paper has multiple peer-reviews and no one, as yet, has been able to come close to debunking the material, nor been able to approach it at a scientific level. It can be a difficult read, as the implications of the numerous scientific claims are not apparent to the layman or casual observer.

The bottom line is that solid scientific material exists, that suggests either an alternative scenario, or a hidden scenario under the guise of the attacks.

This must be covered for accuracy and balance.

His work isn't even published by a reliable source, so it fails WP:RS--MONGO 11:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. The work of Jones, who has no expertise on building collapse forensics, was published in the Marxist publication Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23. BYU civil engineers reject Jones' claims. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Debunking the alleged evidence

Of course the material has been debunked. Steven Jones raises 13 points; here are the problems with them:
1. Equally valid observation for both catastrophic failure and controlled demolition
2. WTC 7, not relevant to WTC 1 and WTC 2.
3. Same as (1).
4. Fact about unrelated circumstances.
5. Observation consistent with catastrophic failure and not controlled demolition
6. Same as (1).
7. Same as (1).
8. Same as (1).
9. Same as (5).
10. Same as (5).
11. Based on flawed assumption.
12. Objection to NIST procedure, unrelated to actual tower collapse.
13. Same as (12).

1. Equally valid observation for both catastrophic failure and controlled demolition

Nonsense. Molten metal has never been observed in any "catastrphic failure". You'd be better off denying molten metal, like DCAnderson and others.

2. WTC 7, not relevant to WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Yes, the sulfidation and very high temperatures in this reference are about WTC7. Other than incidiaries, what could explain them? Just saying this doesn't apply to WTC1 & 2 aviods the issue.

3. Same as (1).

Nonsense. Symmetrical collapse requires all vertical columns to fail at the same time, or at least for a majority of them to fail in a symmetrical pattern. Second Law of Thermodynamics excludes this from random causes, such as impact damage and fire.

4. Fact about unrelated circumstances.

Nonsense. No previous skyscapers have collapsed from fire in over 100 years of history, then 3 collapse in one day, and you find this "unrelated"? I'd say it is very related.

5. Observation consistent with catastrophic failure and not controlled demolition

Jets of smoke are observed exiting WTC7 horizontally, floor by floor, starting at about floor 42, and proceeding upwards all the way to the top floor 47, spaced about .2 seconds apart. These floors have not collapsed relative to each other, so is hard to explain absent explosives. Yet, it is perfectly consistent with controlled demolition, and resembles many of them.

6. Same as (1).

Early antenna drop indicates the core structure failed first. If not from demolition, why would the strongest part fail first?

7. Same as (1).

A litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions gives more credence to controlled demoltions, and less credence to anything else.

8. Same as (1).

Nonsense. Gravity operates vertically. It is absurd for you to suggest that the horizontal ejection of heavy steel beams for hundreds of feet supports a gravity driven explanation. Clearly this is more supportive of controlled demolition.

9. Same as (5).

Nonsense. You are suggesting that the near free-fall collapse times are supportive of catasrophic failure and NOT demolition. Come on. We observe dozens of demoltions on video. They occur at near free-fall times, for well-understood reasons. You cannot cite a single example of a catastrphic failure behaving like that, and there is ample reason to believe that it is physically impossible.

10. Same as (5).

Controlled demoltions require skill. You claim this supports catastrophic failure? Huh??

11. Based on flawed assumption.

The B&Z paper requires column temperatures to go up to 800 degrees C. There is no evidence to support fire temperatures that hot, much less column temperatures that hot. Where is the flawed assumption?

12. Objection to NIST procedure, unrelated to actual tower collapse.

NIST commissioned actual fire tests, which showed that the floors would not fail. They didn't like that, so they supposedly made a computer model, tweaked the inputs until they got a failure, then refuse to release any of this to the public. Jones' point is well taken. NIST is far from convincing.

13. Same as (12).

Repeatability is the essence of the scientific method. Releasing the visualizations of the computer model is standard. The idea is that someone else can employ your methods, and come to the same result. NIST has refused to do this, therefore going against the scienfic method, therefore Jones' point is well taken.

I would also point out that the paper makes the claim The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.... -- this is made as a statement of faith, without evidence, so the objectivity of the whole paper comes into question. Peter Grey 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Peter, this is a statement made on observation, not faith. We observe that the towers stand motionless for 56 and 102 minutes after the crashes.
TruthSeeker1234 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


All these conspiracy nuts are just too much. i am a civil engineer with 30 years of experience, ranging from shopping centers to a major downtown commercial complex with 7 hirise towers. Fires can easily cause a high rise building to collapse. They are more fragile than you would like to believe. The types of collapses that occured on sept 11 have occurred many times before, for example, in Mexico city.
I wish we could make indestructable towers. If our clients had an unlimited budget, we could. But they don't. I could easily bring any steel framed structure down with gasoline and a match. You just have to know where to light the fire. The fact that on 911 fire accidentally found the right places is not surprising to me. I'm surprised the buildings stood as long as they did. Jet fuel burns so hot it is almost like a nuclear reaction.
This debate is over. The government panels have studied this to death. There is NO evidence of controlled demolition. None. You idiot moron conspiracy quacks have no business attempting to edit an article on a technical subject. Move out of the way, and let experts do it, like me.

24.106.90.250 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An expert within civilized society won't use vocabulary like "nuts, idiot moron, quacks" etc. Now your other possible arguments which have not been even presented here lost any viability. Thank you for supporting (unconsciously) the honest documentation of the 9/11 events. PS in a just and fair dialogue supporting community your IP address would be banned immediately and not allowed here but we know who controls and spins all political articles on Wikipedia, so you are about to stay..

Damage total

I notice the damage total is not mentioned on the article. I've read a few sources that said it was in the $20 billion range. Provided someone finds an exact, official link, I think something like that would be an important little fact for the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-qaeda comment removed

An anonymous IP added "It is important to note that the US government has supported, trained, and sold arms to al-Qaeda in the past. In fact, the US put al-Qaeda into power." As that would be a horribly a very strong and dangerous comment to make without prior discussion, especially amid controversy, I removed it back the version of the article prior. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Something along those lines could go in, as long as there was a good source for it. But it wouldn't, even if we had an affadavit from the government that said so. SkeenaR 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The USG did not arm or train al-Qaeda. It armed and trained the Muhjahadeen, specifically to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; and the Muhjahadeen gave birth to al-Qaeda only after the Cold War ended and jihad to create a fundamentalist Islamic super state replaced jihad to evict the Russians. It may be ironic that al-Qaeda grew up to bite the hand that once fed it, and the whole affair may display a lack of foresight on the pasrt of 80's policymakers; but that hardly supports the anonymous IP's obvious implication that the US knowingly created the terorist organization. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and boy does this talk page prove it! TexxasFinn 10:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Title is incorrectly punctuated

The title should read "September 11, 2001, attacks." The year is parenthetical. It should be set off by two commas, not just one.

66.146.211.71 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole date September 11, 2001 is an integral part of the name. Peter Grey 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

By "parenthetical," I did not mean that the year was unimportant or not "integral." The year in the American style is parenthetical in the same way that "Illinois" is parenthetical in "I have lived in Chicago, Illinois, for ten years" or the way that "our first president" is parenthetical in "George Washington, our first president, was very popular after the revolution." There's no negative connotation.

It's a common mistake to use only one comma, but it is a mistake nonetheless. It looks like you're joining two clauses with a comma but no conjunction. In other words, in the sentence "The September 11, 2001 attacks were devastating," it looks like you're trying to make an independent clause out of "2001 attacks were devastating." It doesn't make any sense. 65.107.70.253 19:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Week, etc.

I propose the following addendum: "The attacks were carried out on a Tuesday--a weekday. As such, most schools and workplaces allowed students and workers to witness the television coverage throughout the day." Also mention something about many students wishing to make telephone calls to relatives, and schools allowing this. 18.243.6.65 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko (high school student during the attacks)

Fatalities section

I do not understand why the following two sentences begin the fatality section: "One fatality was US-Israeli multi-millionaire Daniel Lewin, an influential figure in the development of the internet and a former member of an elite Israeli anti-terrorist unit. Also aboard Flight 11 the captain, John Ogonowski, is said to have been killed by terrorists before the impact."

It seems to me that the section should immediately emphasize the number of deaths. Pointing out a wealthy individual and how one particular victim was killed seems to undermine that goal; furthermore, it most likely will leave out other influential people. The safe thing could be to emphasize the number of fatalities and their location at the time of their death. Placing two people at the beginning of the section seems to lessen that emphasis. Smackme 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility section Declaration of War citation

His declaration of a holy war against the United States,[citation needed]

cite Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War” issued 23AUG1996 [[303]]

There is a secondary source on PBS.org in the talk page of the wikisource page. 70.134.88.250 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Can we please add something along the lines of: "Despite the US government citing that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, the FBI have stated that there is no hard evidence connecting him to the attacks. The official FBI 'most wanted' site does not state that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks."

This is very important I think.

Missiles attached to the hijacked planes

Close examination of the videos (I saw it at 1 frame per second) shows quite clearly that a missile was launched from the second plane and suggests that one was launched from the first, both a split second before the actual crash. This was probably to ensure destruction. Slowing down of other footage shows an extra piece of equipment underneath US Flight 175 shortly before impact into the South Tower. This means that somehow, the terrorists had planned in advance and attached these missiles to the airplanes without detection by authorities. It is also possible that they were allowed to, but all we know for certain is that a flash occured between Flight 11 and the North Tower before it crashed and a missile was launched in a similar flash (from a pod attached to the underside of US Flight 175) into the South Tower a split second before the 2nd crash.

Boeing, the manufacturer, when questioned about the extra part on Flight 175, totally refused questions of it, simply saying that the nation's security was at stake.

This can be proven by slowing certain cameras' views of the 2nd crash down enough, and close examination of the 1st crash.

This is very relevant information, and unquestionable fact, so why not add it somewhere in the article?

205.188.116.73 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard the missile theory combined with the hijacking theory. Walk through this with me. Teams of terrorists smuggle missiles into an airport, which they then somehow attach to the bottoms of several jets, which nobody -- other flight crews, people loading baggage into the planes, people looking out the windows of the airport -- nobody notices. They also get into the planes themselves and run controls for the missiles into the cockpits so they will be able to fire them at their targets, though instead of simply hijacking the planes right there, they all leave the runway, reenter the airport, and hijack these planes from the inside. They then fly the planes to their targets where they fire missiles at them, and, to be really thorough, they crash into their targets as well.
I think you're gonna have trouble with WP:CITE on this one. Just my hunch. JDoorjam Talk 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, No, don't you get it? The terrorists didn't smuggle the missiles, it's the US Government that did it; the same government that killed JFK, Marilyn Monroe, orchestrated a fake moon landing, and created 'new coke.' Jeez, are you dense....TexxasFinn 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to Get On With Life

I am a civil engineer with decades of experience designing structures, including skyscrapers. I am sick and tired of [editors] on this page pushing conspiracy theories with no basis in reality. I will comment only on the WTC collapses, as I am an expert. Listen up.

1. Fires absolutely can cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse. I have seen it with my own eyes. It has happened many times before. We could build them stronger, but they would be more expensive, and less spacious.

2. A collapse such as the 2 that occured on 9/11 can indeed produce molten steel. What happens when you bend a piece of wire? It gets hot. Multiply that by about 500,000 and you can understand that the tremendous mass above the failure point will have more than enough energy to melt steel. I'm surprised there wasn't more molten steel at ground zero.

3. Much has been said about the concrete turning into powder. For god's sake, this lightweight concrete we use is powder and glue, that's it. Drop a chunk of this stuff 10 feet and it will turn to powder, just like that. The concrete in the twin towers fell an average of over 500 hundred feet before it hit the ground. What do you expect would happen?

And so on.

In case any of you [editors] didn't notice, FEMA studied the collapses. That should have been enough, but just to [completely convince everyone], we went and had NIST study it some more. NIST has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE of a controlled demolition. Why would they say such a thing if it wasn't true? This is a democracy, not some third world [country]. Frankly, these fine men and women have much more important things to do than respond to nonsense. Our country is in grave danger until we stamp out terrorism world-wide. We should not spend any more time and resources studying the collapses.

If any of you have specific questions about structure, I am more than happy to answer. I am on board now, please leave the technical aspects of 9/11 related articles to those of us who are qualified to edit them.

[Warmest regards,]

EngineerEd 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This seemed to have a few issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA but I thought the points were probably valid, so I trimmed the flamebait. Here's the original posting. Is Wikipedia censored for minors? No, but in this case I'll censor it to keep people from behaving like children. JDoorjam Talk 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK if I add a mention in the article about how common it is for steel framed structures to collapse from fire? For some reason I can't edit the article. Is this because I'm new? I'd like to edit the collapse article too, but that seems blocked also. Maybe it's just my browser.

EngineerEd 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to vandalism, some articles are locked to prevent anonymous or new users from editing. It's not just you. It usually takes a few days before you're allowed. Perhaps if you state your submission here, we can add it. --Golbez 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For starters, this passage:

There has been much speculation on the "performance" of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and the relevant U.S. government agencies.

Should be changed to something like this:

The cause of the Twin Towers collapses is a well understood, common phenomenon. It is called "global progressive collapse", which has, unfortunately, been observed many times before. The studies by FEMA and NIST have confirmed this, and "debate" continues only amongst non-professionals.

74.128.44.60 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation or two to support the statement that, "Global Progressive collapse has been observed many times before" Specific examples of steel structures collapsing due to fire "many times before" would be extremely valuable. Thanks
70.25.48.58 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to belabour the point. All that is required is a simple statement of the legitimate studies and their conclusions, and the absence of evidence of a deliberate demolition. Peter Grey 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be acceptable. To be fair and NPOV however, the Steven Jones article should also be given a mention. Whether or not you believe the assertions, the paper IS notable and has been widely circulated by the conspiracy theorist community.
70.25.48.58 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Steven Jones the not-structural-engineer from Brigham Young? I don't see why either he or his paper is relevant to a statement about experts in the field of structural engineering. "Some non-engineers like Steven Jones, however..." isn't NPOV or balance, it's just silly. JDoorjam Talk 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, Steven Jones's paper has yet to be published by a reliable third party...and only appears in conspiracy theory websites.--MONGO 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop going in circles

Steven Jones' paper is notable as a pop culture phenomenon, and can be mentioned on the appropriate article. The demolition conjecture essentially comes down to an Internet hoax in bad taste. NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. I would like to throw out the following challenge to the believers in demolition: All the alleged "evidence" is something like 'Such-and-such observation looks like a controlled demolition'. Find us one valid example of form 'Such-and-such observation looks like a controlled demolition, and it does not look like a catastrophic structural failure'. Peter Grey 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, don't. Respectfully, Peter (and from your comment I'm pretty confident you'll agree with me anyway), we're onto something here and I don't want to lose it into the 9/11 conspiracy theories vortex. Can we get some sources on global progressive collapse? This sounds like a concept that, with proper sourcing, could really have legs in this article and make it an extremely valuable public source of technical information about the tower collapses. If that's a valid and relevant technical concept, by all means let's source and appropriate it into this work. JDoorjam Talk 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 'Global Progressive Collapse' does sound like an impressive engineering term. I would welcome the inclusion of a well cited explanation of what it means as well as its implications. Specifically, I would be curious to learn how 'Global Progressive Collapse' explains how buildings can collapse at near free-fall velocities, in accordance with Newtonian Gravity. Steven Jones is an expert in the field of physics, and his paper specifically addresses this question. His research is well sourced with clear citations and has received wide scrutiny by the both sides of the 9/11 debate. To exclude it here, would be tantamount to censorship - it has clearly been a heated source of discussion, and is notable for that fact alone. I am looking forward to improving this section. Can anyone provide some background sources on 'Global Progressive Collapse?'
70.25.48.58 12:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Steven Jones's paper has NOT been peer reviewed, NOT been published by a reliable third party source and is NOT scientific...if you really want to learn something, read this: [304]--MONGO 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
None of this discussion belongs on this page. None of this suggested text belongs in this entry. As Mongo has aptly pointed out: "Steven Jones's paper has yet to be published by a reliable third party," and all of this speculation is little more than gossip, rumor-mongering, and marginal speculation. Please take this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. --Cberlet 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Jones' paper is not research. The paper has received scrutiny, yes, and it has failed to meet the standards for engineering analysis. (By the way, since Jones is not a structural engineer, neither are his peers.) As for how buildings can collapse at near free-fall velocities, it's a simple calculation of impact loading. If a bettr calculation finds a different velocity, that would be a legitimate criticism - an appeal to intuition is not. Peter Grey 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, see User talk:Huysman/911 conspiracism where I demonstrate fatal flaws in various 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The best source for information on progressive collapse relevant to this article is the NIST report. All you need is in there.

Steven Jones is a theoretical physicist. I think he is an excellent source for the latest musings about alternate dimensions, or time travel. As for the real world, you need to talk to an engineer. Engineers are about making things work in the real world. I have read the Jones paper, and it is just a bunch of nonsense. As I have stated before, there is nothing unusual about pools of molten metal at a disaster site.

We had a tower collapse in Houston Texas in 1992. This was the Fuji tower, 56 stories, which was about 90% complete, when a crane operator (who was on drugs) began operation before his platform was secure, the crane fell over, and triggered a total progressive collapse. I personally saw a pool of molten metal at the site when I came with the insurance investigator.

The collapses of the twin towers did not look like a controlled demolition, if you know what you are looking for. For one thing, the towers EX-ploded, whereas a controlled demolition is an IM-plosion.

EngineerEd 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply a reference or at least a date for the collapse of the Fuji Tower (are you sure that was the right name?) in Houston Texas? I can't find any information on that. Toiyabe 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And a reference for the molten metal just to be fair. SkeenaR 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is anything on the web about it, but look, I was there. The point is that progressive collapse happens. I wish it didn't, but it does. There was another one in Mexico City that was caused by a fire. True, this fire burned for about 8 hours, and was a different type of design than the twin towers. This building was desinged by the Mexicans and was essentially held up by a series of intersecting arches, getting smaller and smaller as it went up. It was called the Arcos Rincon, very beautiful and innovative. Completely collapsed on one side, and turned to dust.

The point is, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. There are plenty of places for people to speculate about conspiracy theories. It is time to stop disgracing the honor of the people who were murdered on 911. Allowing the conspiracy nuts to have any say in this article is a disgrace, a shame. There ought to be something that the honest editors can do about it.

Can't these conspiracy theorists be stopped, or blocked, or shut down? What's more important, letting "everyone" edit these 911 aritlces, or getting it right? I think that getting the facts straight is more important.


24.106.90.250 07:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can have this article to yourself and then you can fill it with insults, tell everybody how smart you are, and use really dirty emotional propaganda. SkeenaR 10:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to stop, block or shut people out, provided they follow the rules. The only thing I know of that works is to stay calm and provide well sourced information. That information doesn't need to be online - if you gave me a reasonable date range for the "Fuji Tower" or "Arcos Rincon" collapses, I could look through the trade rags and journals for information to add to the article.
Hyperbole doesn't help either, in my humble opinion - it just gives your opponents something extraneous to grab onto and discredit without discrediting the core idea.
Finally, I'm assuming that you are User:EngineerEd, and forgot to log in. If you check the "remember me" box when you log in, you won't need to remember to do that each time. Toiyabe 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, you've got lots of allies here in the war against "made up things" and unsubstantiated conspiracy cruft. Let us know what you want, and we will support your edits. Cheers. Morton DevonshireYo

Ed made up the stuff about the Fuji Tower and Arcos Rincon. There are no historical examples of "global progressive collapse", or molten metal from a building collapse. EngineerEd is a fake. I'll stake my reputation on it. Ed, I challenge you to provide any substantiation for anything you have said.

I think it is interesting how Morton and Toiyabe are so eager to be "allies" with an obvious fake. TruthSeeker1234 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not allied with anybody. I am also skeptical of EngineerEd, and was politely giving him a chance to back up his claims. I think that's clear if you read what I wrote. I almost think he's a sock-puppet or troll. Toiyabe 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you could be right. SkeenaR 10:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theory supporters to show evidence of an alternative. (Note that feelings, intuition and opinions of amateurs are not evidence.) Peter Grey 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower just moments before collapse is evidence Peter. So is the complete pulverization of the towers to dust. Even Credible source governor George Pataki mentioned the dust covering lower Manhattan from "river to river". A litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions, that's evidence too. So are the squibs. And the photgraphed flashes. And the collapse times. And the mushroom clouds. And the horizontal ejection of steel pieces for hundreds of feet. That's evidence, not feelings, intuition or opinion, Peter. TruthSeeker1234 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that engineers named Ed suddenly appear and create mythical buildings that collapse in a globally progressive sort of way while magically melting metal in defiance of the known laws of physics & chemistry - all in order to discredit the idea that 3 buildings collapsed in a manner that suspiciously resembled a controlled demolition - speaks volumes about the lengths some editors are willing to go to shut down opposing viewpoints. Is this really what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? {User formerly known as 70.25.48.58) Digiterata 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is about supporting article entries with verifiable information from reliable sources. Something which you and the other conspiracy theorists cannot do. Morton DevonshireYo
Morton, I am impressed with your continued commitment to supporting article entries with verifiable information from reliable sources. Perhaps you could be bold and add some verifiable sources on Ed's behalf. Any independantly verifiable source that references either Fuji Tower or Arcos Rincon in relation to global progressive collapse would be a good start. I'm confident Ed would appreciate your help as an ally in the war against "made up things". Digiterata 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


The official story is a conspiracy theory, one with very little in the way of facts to support it. How and why do 19 Arabs board 4 planes without tickets, for example?

"Engineer Ed" has offered nothing in the way of documentation. He's a fake, I promise. I find nothing at all about either Fuji Tower or Arcos Rincon. It's BS. Ed, you on tonight? Come on. In the meantime, there are reliable mainstream sources (NY Times, FEMA) that have reported molten metal and partially evaportated metal, and very high temperatures achieved. This is interesting stuff, and ought to go in some article somewhere.

Have you heard the latest? Steven Jones has analyzed some samples of WTC slag, it's iron with high concentrations of sulfer, such as what would be produced from thermate. This is consistent with the FEMA metalurgical study which showed the "swiss cheese" appearance of the metal, the "rapid oxidation" and the sulfer content.

Meanwhile the NY Times author Glanz has changed the title of his infamous article from

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC

"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"

to

Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel TruthSeeker1234 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No tickets? Where did you read that nonsense? Steven Jones, again, has not had his evidence published by a reputable third party...what part about this do you not understand?--MONGO 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN published the flight manifests from all four 9/11 flights a few days after the attacks. There are no Arab names at all. Does MONGO or anyone have any reliable source showing Arab names on any flight manifests? 69.236.23.7 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Use some critical thinking and stop repeating long-discredited claims. From CNN: "The list includes those listed as "confirmed dead" and "reported dead" by the Associated Press... Includes those whose deaths have been reported by family, employers, mortuaries, places of worship or by the airlines that listed them as aboard one of the four flights... Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included." Boston Globe has a complete AA11 manifest at http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you explain the millions of independent journalists who have investigated this story, and who corroborate through their reporting the common account? Morton DevonshireYo

Not millions, but thousands upon thousands of paid scribes, yes. Does that really need explaining? (nice pic!) SkeenaR 10:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All the 'evidence' cited demonstrates either a fire or a structural failure, both of which are on film and, I hope, undisputed. There is nothing that suggests demolition. Peter Grey 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, if what you are asking for is undisputable undeniable 'smoking gun' proof of controlled demolition before you are willing to allow any reference at all to the fact that some argue there to be evidence suggesting that something other than planes and fires alone caused the structural failure, then you are placing a higher standard on inclusion than Wikipedia can expect. In fact, you are placing a higher standard on inclusion than most of the official 9/11 story can withstand.
One relevant and notable fact is the observation by multiple credible sources of MOLTON METAL at the site days and even weeks after the events. Below under 'NIST at WTC' a clear, well-cited, credibly referenced article makes multiple mentions of the MOLTON METAL. I have some others if you prefer. I think it is clear that MOLTON METAL has cleared the hurdle of verifiability and it is most certainly notable since the only way to explain it within the framework of 'structural failure' would be if the buildings had collapsed in a globally progressive sort of way like those two other famous buildings: The Fuji Tower and the Archos Ricon, but we're still waiting for verifiable sources for those. I don't know if MOLTEN METAL prooves anything, but the fact remains it is both notable and verifiable and deserves to be added to the article. Digiterata 19:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss molten metal, do it at the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. This article is the factual account of what happened on September 11th. Morton DevonshireYo

Someone said, "It is time to stop disgracing the honor of the people who were murdered on 911." I certainly agree with this statement. SO DO SOME OF THE 911 FAMILIES:

"At first, we widows didn't want to be seen with CONSPIRACY PEOPLE. But they kept showing up. THEY CARED MORE THAN THOSE SUPPOSEDLY DOING THE INVESTIGATING. If you ask me, they're just Americans, looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right." - Lorie Van Auken, The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, March 27, 2006 58.106.69.176 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt that quote say the exact opposite of what you are saying? The widow says the conspiracy investigators cared more than the official investigators, and says it is their right to look for the truth. I agree. Fritzz44 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NIST at WTC

Additional unusual behaviors observed for WTC2 included the correlated smoke puffs observed over large areas of the façade and over the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased DRAMATICALLY, often accompanied by external flames. These events were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurrences of smoke puffs were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place. The evidence suggests that these smoke puffs resulted from PRESSURE PULSES generated within the tower and transmitted to other locations. It is considered likely while these pressure pulses were of sufficient magnitude to affect smoke flows over multiple floors, they were much too small to affect the tower's structural components. For most of the smoke puffs, there was no visual indication of the event that generated the pressure pulse or its location. In a few cases, such as when WHEN MOLTEN METAL POURED from the tower, circumstantial evidence indicated that the puffs WERE ASSOCIATED with specific observed events. - NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation (p.p.36-38)

The video shot from the WTC plaza captured an INTRIGUING event at 9:37:04 a.m. A jet of air, dust, and A LARGE PIECE OF DEBRIS WAS EJECTED from a window, 77-355, on the 77th floor at AN EXTREMELY HIGH VELOCITY. Longer distance videos show that puffs of smoke and/or dust appeared simultaneously on the east face from several open windows near the center of the 78th floor and from open windows on the north side of the 79th floor. Interestingly, the smoke flow from the windows on the west sides of the 79th and 80th floors, which had decreased markedly by this time, did not increase. Within 14s of this release, a large fire either grew or became visible near the center of the east face on the 82nd floor. A long distance video shot from the south showed that fire and smoke were pushed from multiple locations on the south face at the same time the strong jet occurred on the 77th floor of the east face. -NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation (p. 346)

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be MOLTEN METAL WAS OBSERVED POURING from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a PRESSURE PULSE that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.[...]

There was another release of smoke and/or dust from near the east edge of the north face at 9:52:38 a.m. Immediately afterward, the spot near the top of window 80-255 brightened considerably. At 9:52:47 a.m. a series of three much LARGER PRESSURE PULSES, which took place over 35s, pushed smoke and/or dust from several locations on multiple floors of the north face. These locations included those described above, the two areas on the north side of the 83rd floor where fires were burning, the vicinity of the pile of debris near the center of the 79th floor, an area of newly observed fire on the 79th floor near windows 79-209 to 79-213, and the opening of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. The fire burning near the center of the 79th floor flared up noticeably. Immediately following one of the pressure pulses (at 9:52:48 a.m.) intense flames suddenly reappeared in windows 91-301 and 81-302 on the east face just to the south of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. At roughly the same time, part of the debris lodged at the northeast corner of the 81st floor fell out of the opening. Relatively small amounts of MOLTEN MATERIAL POURED from window 80-255 NEAR THE START AND THE END OF THE series of PRESSURE PULSES. Videos show that smoke was also expelled from windows near the north edges of the 79th and 80th floors of the east face during these pressure pulses. NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)

At 9:53:41 a.m. and 9:53:46 a.m. two pressure pulses forced additional smoke from windows on the north face. Both of these occurrences were ACCOMPANIED BY SHORT FLOWS OF MOLTEN MATERIAL from the same window, 80-255, on the 80th floor observed earlier. The largest flow occurred during the second release. Figure 9-75 shows a view of the northeast corner of WTC2 taken from a video at 9:53:51 a.m. The BRIGHT MOLTEN STREAM flowing from the top of windows 80-255 IS PROMINENT.

An image of the north face taken at 9:55:18 a.m. is shown in Figure 9-76. The image was shot 1 min 45s after the one shown in Figure 9-74. The fire distributions are very similar in the two photographs, with the exception of the fire on the 82nd floor to the right of the cold spot in Figure 9-76. As discussed above, the fire was first observed at 9:53:47 a.m. burning in windows 82-234 to 82-337. At 9:55:18 a.m. flames were visible in windows 82-231 to 82-236, and flames were coming out of windows 82-233. The bright spot at the top of window 80-255 is visible on the 80th floor, but there is no obvious molten liquid flow at this time. Unlike in the earlier photograph, fire is now visible in the adjacent window, 80-256. During the next several minutes, following the two pressure pulses around 9:53:45 a.m., numerous pressure pulses were noted that pushed smoke from open windows on the north and east faces of WTC2.

A particularly STRONG PRESSURE PULSE started at 9:56:11 a.m. It lasted nearly 10s. This particular pulse was strong enough to push flames from the tower at many locations. Following a pressure pulse at 9:56:31 a.m., the flames present on the 81st floor in the northeast corner opening and nearby flames on the north face abruptly died down. The large flame in window 81-301 on the east face also declined within 2s. All of these flames reappeared after a few seconds. At 9:57:21 a.m., shortly after another pressure pulse, the BRIGHT LIGHT reappeared at the top window, 80-255, on the 80th floor from which the FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL had been observed earlier. Almost immediately, it appeared to jump one window to the east, i.e., to window 80-256. Five seconds later a LIGHT FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL began pouring out of window 80-256. THE FLOW OF MATERIAL from this window WOULD NOW BE NEARLY CONTINUOUS UNTIL THE TOWER COLLAPSED. At 9:57:32 a.m. there was a fairly intense pressure pulse within the tower. THE FLOW RATE OF THE MOLTEN METAL INCREASED DRAMATICALLY at this time. p. 383 (pdf p. 87)

Figure 9-77 is a frame from a video that was shot at 9:57:45 a.m. It shows the falling metal as it was approaching the ground. THE LARGE AMOUNT of falling material IS EVIDENT. Most of the molten metal seems to have broken up into small "droplets," but there are a couple of large pieces falling as well. Apparently, the material flowing out of window 80-256 also included pieces of debris that had not fully melted. There was another HEAVY FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL at 9:58:35 a.m. p.384 (pdf p. 88)

Numerous visual observations suggest that IMPORTANT CHANGES, which might have had STRUCTURAL RELEVANCE, were taking place in WTC2 in the period following aircraft impact until collapse. These observations include hanging objects, some of which, based on appearance, may have been locally dislodged floor slabs that had settled down to locations below the spandrel, at several locations on the north and east faces, changes in positions of the hanging objects during the period, the occurrence of numerous PRESSURE PULSES identified by smoke and/or dust puffs generated over multiple windows and floors, the appearance of MOLTEN METAL pouring from the tops of open windows, and bowing of outer steel framework. p.412(pdf 116) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

"THERMAL IMAGERY OF THE PROGRESSION OF MOLTEN STEEL HOTSPOTS from September 18 to September 25" GeoNews, October, 2001 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ees/october2001.pdf 58.106.68.81 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you have something you wanted to add to the article?--MONGO 11:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MONGO, we would like to add mention of the MOLTEN METAL. You and others have repeatedly denied the existance of molten metal at WTC, and have used every excuse in the book to keep it out. MONGO, why don't you give us a promise not to remove mention of MOLTEN METALTruthSeeker1234 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why didn't you say so...the answer is no. Peace.--MONGO 19:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. We have FEMA, NIST, the NY Times, Structural Enginneer and various experts ALL saying there was molten metal. We have photographs and videos of molten metal. We have metalurgical reports. Yet MONGO says there was no molten metal. What exactly is your reputable source for no molten metal MONGO? Please, link us. TruthSeeker1234 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are taking tidbids and trying to make a mountain out of them...this is typical conspiracy theory cruft nonsense tactics to try and weasel the bullshit about controlled demolition in the article. Did you not see the word no...here it is again...NO.--MONGO 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Molton Metal was observed at Ground Zero is both Verifiable and Notable. Shall I be bold here and add it myself (supported of course by verifiable and reliable sources, or do we need MONGO's blessing? Digiterata 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I smell a revert war a coming ......
......but I sure hope we can act like adults and avoid one.
Revert war and you'll be blocked...I'll protect the page...cry me a river.--MONGO 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Digiterata, add something to the Collapse of the World Trade Center. I've got your back. MONGO and co will revert war, I'm sure. Let's just try and improve the article, make it NPOV, with verifiable reputable sources, and see how it goes. TruthSeeker1234 21:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we take a step back here. I'm willing to wait a day so we can hear the thoughts of the wider community. I believe there is sufficient independantly verifiable evidence to justify including a line or two referencing the fact that Molten Metal was observed among the debris at Ground Zero.
If you are strongly opposed to this observation being included, please take this opportunity to make your views heard - but please provide clear reasoning backed by credible references, and please No Personal Attacks.
On the other hand, if you agree that Molten Metal has met the test required for inclusion, this is the time to speak up. Which references should be included? What specific wording would you suggest? I really do want to keep this civil, but it is time for Molten Metal to go into this article.
Remember, reason will always beat ignorance, no matter what. Digiterata 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Then you have already lost.--MONGO 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"You are taking tidbids (REAMS OF MUTUALLY-COMPATIBLE EVIDENCE) and trying to make a mountain out of them (SEE MOUNTAIN-OF-MOLTEN-METAL THERMAL MIGRATION MAP - GeoNews, October, 2001 op.cit.)...this is typical conspiracy theory (SEE "ATTACK HELD TO BE A CONSPIRACY" - LA Times, 911)cruft nonsense tactics (see APPEAL TO RIDICULE) to try and weasel the bullshit (see POTTY-MOUTHED WEASEL) about controlled demolition in the article (see "FIVE MEN DETAINED AS SUSPECTED CONSPIRATORS", Bergen Record, Paulo Lima, 912). Did you not see the word no...here it is again...NO.--MONGO 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)" (see "MONGOPEDIA RULES! WOO HOO!")

1 - Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service May 29, 2002 [...] When [Joe] O'Toole signed on for trade center duty in January, he thought it would be a 30-day assignment. But after one month, he volunteered for another. And another. And another. And another. [...] Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was DRIPPING FROM THE MOLTEN STEEL," he said. -cache http://www.911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html

2 [...] A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, [Ron] Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, SEEING THE MOLTEN STEEL, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster," he said. "It could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano." Ground Zero was a disaster site like no other—with hazards everywhere. Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering RED HOT METAL BEAMS excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses. http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

3 Ironworkers' Job of Clearing Ground Zero Is Over, but the Trauma Lingers By COREY KILGANNON November 11, 2002 [...] The four men sat on a sunny sidewalk in Greenwich Village on a recent workday and ate their lunch staring at the steel skeleton of a building going up on West Third Street. One of them commented on how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D00E7DE1331F932A25752C1A9649C8B63

4 Reflections in the Wake of September 11: Visit to Ground Zero, New York City by Father Edward A. Malloy, CSC [...] Eddie and I walked down into the depths of the South Tower, Building Two, which was the first to collapse. Large front end loaders were engaged in their task. Gigantic cranes were lifting pieces of steel weighing tons, some of which were being placed on the back of semi trucks. Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that WHEN STEEL IS BROUGHT UP IT IS MOLTEN and takes two or three days to cool down. http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/reflect/malloydiary.html

5 RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was RED-HOT, MOLTEN, RUNNING. PBS, September 2002 http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

6 TWO WEEKS AT GROUND ZERO By Guy Lounsbury [...] My particular part was to help maintain security in and around the perimeter of the site. [...] Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. home.nycap.rr.com http://home.nycap.rr.com/geljal/Documents/TWO%20WEEKS%20AT%20GROUND%20ZERO.htm

7 At Ground Zero NIH'ers Respond to Tragedy in NYC By Rich McManus Photos by Van Hubbard, Susan Orsega, Rich McManus [...] Ed Pfister's Diary: [...] I spent several hours tonight, walking "the pile" and attempting to soak it all in for the last time and find a bit of closure...deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and BOILED WITH MOLTEN MATERIAL. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above. http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm

8 Reluctant hero narrates horror of N.Y. mission September 11, 2002 [...] Interim Bryan Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho was one of those sent to "ground zero," as the World Trade Center site quickly became known. [...] Here is Donoho’s story, as told to Eagle staff writer John LeBas: [...] What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MOLTEN STEEL and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like A MASSIVE MOLTEN MESS THAT HAD BEEN FUSED TOGETHER, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A LOT of what we were walking on was JUST MOLTEN STEEL. http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm

9 MAGIC@GROUND ZERO by Ben Robinson edited by David Groves October 17, 2001 On October 4, I was called to do an indoor street performance by the New York City police department. [...]One cop wore an ill-fitting pair of sweat pants and a Grateful Dead T shirt. His "house shoes" would have been rejected by Phyllis Diller. Turns out, after someone works at Ground Zero, their clothes are trashed, and they put on these interim clothes that are piling up in donations. The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. And, I'm working for these brave souls http://www.illusiongenius.com/11-01.html

10 It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of air-monitoring equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast. "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." John Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall 2001 Magazine http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

11 They came to help at Ground Zero. What they experienced they can't forget By Marci McDonald [...] Lee Turner, a bewhiskered paramedic, leads a tour with a mix of pride and disdain. For six years, he helped build it, corralling old culvert pipe, rusted refrigerators, and even a wrecked school bus. For six years, he and 185 other members of a federal urban search and rescue squad known as Missouri Task Force 1 (MO-TF1) had trained on it, unpaid, waiting for the call to be deployed. [...] In the predawn darkness of September 12, barely 18 hours after MO-TF1 got the order for its first deployment, he jumped off an Army truck at the World Trade Center site and stared at a smoldering rubblescape that stretched as far as he could see. "There was nothing but acre after acre of twisted steel and this sticky white dust," he recalls. "We'd never seen anything like it." [...] Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–MOLTEN METAL DRIPPING from a beam–but found no signs of life. usnews http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

12 Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed area requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are STILL RED-HOT MORE THAN 7 WEEKS AFTER the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.http://www.liro.com/lironews.pdf (app. 1.4meg - includes photo of red-hot beam) 58.106.69.176 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the above references smaller because, lacking commentary, the point seems to be that there is a volume of text on the internet about molten debris at the cleanup site. So the text is still there but now people interested in the dialogue going on at this page don't have to wade through it if they want to get to actual comments. Btw, the article I linked to before also explains the amount of energy involved in the collapse of a building like the WTC, enough energy to melt steel. It's actually a really great site -- if you note the navbar on the left, the site prettymuch addresses every conspiracy angle that's come out of this tragedy, with Steven Jones getting his own page. JDoorjam Talk 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The webstite by Schneibster that you refer to proposes a whacky and unofficial gravity pylon driver meltdown theory that doesn't work, and another whacky rubble-foundry explanation exploiting a fantastical 13psf per-floor in combustibles - THREE TIMES NISTs OFFICIAL PER-FLOOR COMBUSSTILBE FUEL LOAD ESTIMATE! The author of the already debunked webpage refuses to acknowlege the official figure. I hope you don't suffer from the same blindsight: "From the floor plans and the combustibility data, it was estimated that the fuel load in the WTC tenant spaces was approximately 20 kg/sq m (4 lb/sq ft). Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft Futhermore, you failed to explain why the molten metal should not be included in the article HERE: instead, you produced an irrelevant distraction. 58.106.69.176 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to include Molten Metal

Text under review: The Collapse

Below is a block of text from the 9/11 Article for review. I was hoping to include a line or two referencing Molton Metal, but it may be more appropriate to re-write. Thoughts? Digiterata 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been much speculation on the performance of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the 
reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and
relevant U.S. government agencies. The design of the WTC included many basic innovations
distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since[citation needed]. Although 
the kinetic energy of the jetliner impacts and the resulting fires were unprecedented in the history
of building disasters, some engineers strongly believe skyscrapers of more traditional design (such 
as New York City's Empire State Building and Malaysia's Petronas Towers) would have fared much
better under the circumstances, perhaps standing indefinitely. If they are correct, exceptionally 
tall buildings that share the WTC's major design elements (for example, Chicago's Sears Tower and
John Hancock Center) could be considered particularly vulnerable[citation needed].
7 World Trade Center collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11. (See [[7 World Trade
Center#The Collapse|7 World Trade Center]] for more details).

Regarding, "The design of the WTC included many basic innovations distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since[citation needed]", could someone please explain what this means and provide a citation? I don't understand.

Regarding the last two sentences beginning with, "Although the kinetic energy.." and "If they are correct.." again we need some citations here supporting these claims. Otherwise we may need to re-write. Suggestions? Digiterata 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading this passage, it came to my attention that it might make sense to begin with the factual details of the collapse. Specifically:

9/11 Chronology of Events: WTC Complex (All times are EDT)
8:45 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center. 
10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. 
A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.
10:28 a.m.: The north tower of the World Trade Center collapses from the top down 
as if it were being peeled apart, releasing a tremendous cloud of debris and smoke.
4:10 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex is reported on fire.
5:20 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex collapses. 
The evacuated building is damaged when the twin towers across the street collapse earlier in the
day. Other nearby buildings in the area remain ablaze.
Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

Suggested Text - Feel free to be bold and make changes or suggestions here:

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of
the attack. The south tower (WTC 2) fell at approximately 10:05am, after burning for 58 minutes
in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03am. The north tower (WTC 1) fell
at 10:28am, after burning approximately 103 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of American
Airlines Flight 11 at 8:45am. A third building (WTC 7) also collapsed at 5:30pm, after burning for
at least 70 minutes and being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers a short distance away.
There has been much speculation on the performance of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the 
reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and
relevant U.S. government agencies.

Here is a start, please speak up! Would like to know if this passage is acceptable so far? Digiterata 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to include the above text in the article under 'Collapse of the World Trade Center'

Please respond here if you would like to comment on this inclusion. Digiterata 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now for the meat, are there any suggestions for appropriate wording referencing Molten Metal? Feedback Please Digiterata 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Molten Metal: Ongoing Discussion

Per discussion above, this is a placeholder to gather the thoughts of the community of contributors and readers of the 9/11 Talk page on the subject of including reference to Molten Metal found in the debris of ground zero after the attacks of 9/11. Please Be Bold! and share your thoughts. Peace. Digiterata 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something in this discussion? Molten metal implies fire, not explosives -- verified, it's pretty much the nail in the coffin of the demolition hoax. Peter Grey 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing something in this discussion. MONGO, DCAnderson, TomHarrison, and others deny the existence of molten metal. Molten Metal is, however, well documented by multiple mainstream sources. If you think that Molten Metal disproves the demoltion theory, you should convince MONGO and co. of that, then they will let it in, and we'll all be happy. Or, I could save you time and point out that you are being absurd. Steel melts at around 2800 F, far above what can be produced in an office fire. Psssst, Peter, just between you and me, they're trying to keep molten metal out of the articles because it is proof of incindiaries.

But hey, Peter, if you want to join us and put molten metal in the article, for whatever reason, welcome to the pro-science camp!

TruthSeeker1234 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other metals besides steel. And there are other substances besides metals which melt. The black body radiation pretty well conclusively says that whatever we saw, it wasn't hot enough to be liquid steel. Or is the new theory that a whole new group of bad guys planted incendiary bombs in the building planning to ruin, but not collapse, it by fire, and the demolition people accidentally set them off when they used their explosives, which was lucky for them because the explosives turned out not to be powerful enough to cause any structural damage? Peter Grey 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sorry, but are you trying to sound nonsensical? First off, we're not trying to foist any particular theory of "who did it". We're trying to include mention of the molten metal which is observed, photographed, videotaped, and confirmed in numerous mainstream sources.

The yellow-to-white-hot stuff looks very much like liquid iron or steel, molten aluminum is silvery grey. Yellow-to-white hot is plenty hot enough to be steel or iron. If you have other ideas about what it could be, speak up.

If you are interested in the theory, it would be this: Thermate was used to cut through steel columns at various key points, then high explosives were triggered in sequence, completing the collapse. All of the available evidence is consistent with this scenario. If you have evidence which contradicts this scenario, please bring it.TruthSeeker1234 03:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right..... So, who was bailing it out the window? Peter Grey 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on Peter, try harder. Such vacuous retorts embolden us. TruthSeeker1234 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, TruthSeeker, as you say above that the molten metal was likely not molten aluminum, but the NIST report which you quote explicitly says that the molten material is most likely aluminum. How do you reconcile those things? Are you saying that the NIST report is inaccurate in its analysis of the metal? But is accurate for the purposes you've quoted? JDoorjam Talk 05:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No confusion needed. The NIST is lying. Remember, the executive branch of the U.S. Federal government is the prime suspect in the alternative theory. It's like asking John Gatti to report on the Mafia. I have stated many times that the NIST is not a reliable source for the collapse of the WTC buildings, because they admit in plain English that they did not study the collapses, only the events leading up to the collapses. FEMA is not reliable because they destroyed the freaking evidence, and are not an investigative agency anyway.

But that's me. Wikipedia is another matter. Consensus here is that NIST and FEMA are reliable sources. So I use them. Now, my conscience forces me to point out falsehoods when I see them. The molten metal cannot be aluminum, because it's the wrong color. It's like the 9/11 commission report, which says that the core of each tower was "a hollow steel shaft". It's just a lie. I don't like lies, because I am a truthseeker.TruthSeeker1234 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So, on the one hand we're not trying to foist any particular theory of "who did it" and on the other hand the executive branch of the U.S. Federal government is the prime suspect, but we can never know given that FEMA is not reliable because they destroyed the freaking evidence. And still no evidence, just people's fears. Peter Grey 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct Peter. As far as the articles go, we're just trying to get verifiable facts in, not the "whodunnit". The rest of the stuff was in response to your questions, which I answered. I have made my views known in the interest of full disclosure, and drawn a clear distinction between what I think (NIST/FEMA are liars when it suits them) and what the consensus of WP editors think (NIST/FEMA is unquestioned gospel).

Despite best efforts at destruction of all evidence, enough hard evidence survives to raise very serious doubts about the entire official story. Yet all the physical evidence is perfectly consistent with controlled demolition. Peter, can you please list one observation which is inconsistent with controlled demoltion? Thank You.TruthSeeker1234 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that any report by the Executive branch is inherentely untrustworthy? And what is your source for the aluminum thing? Finally, can you provide a page number in the 9/11 commission report that says the core of each tower is a "hollow steel shaft"? I think you may have misinterpreted a statement about the structure of the towers, and would appreciate a reference to what you read to clear that up. JDoorjam Talk 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped." [305]. See [306] for amusement.

To understand why the stuff coming out of WTC2 cannot be aluminum, you have to have your thinking hat on. Aluminum melts at about 1220 F. This is dull red-hot, but because of its reflectivity, tends to retain its silver appearance. See [307] In a container, you can heat aluminum up to orange (1725F), even yellow hot. See [308]. You would need a container to do this. If you had a pile of aluminum airplane parts and a hot enough fire, the aluminum would melt when it reached about 1220F, then it would flow away from the heat, long before it was anywhere close to yellow hot.

Aluminum is highly reflective, with low emmissivity, so in daylight it tends to retain its silver color, regardless of the color of light being emmitted.

For these reasons it is highly unlikely that the stuff coming out of the south tower is aluminum.

TruthSeeker1234 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

None of your nonsense is going into this article, so you are wasting your time. We wouldn't put it in here anyway as this article is about the attacks and less so about the collapse...there is a subarticle for the collapse you know. I would argue about your nonsense there so we can again tell you there that your nonsense isn't going in the article.--MONGO 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean MONGO? [User:TruthSeeker1234|TruthSeeker1234]] 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker, above you requested observations that go against the controlled demolition theory. This analysis has a nice explanation of problems with the thermite theory, and goes at length about the reasons why melted aluminum does make sense. Please let me know what you think of the analysis there. JDoorjam Talk 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a blog post on why molten steel is false and molten aluminum is true; it features a Thomas Eagar quote and some analysis, ideal for those with time constraints. However, JDorrjam's external link, an excellent site, is what you need to look at if you want arguments against thermite that my brief post doesn't feature. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this over to the Collapse of the World Trade CenterTruthSeeker1234 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A-hahahahaha...well, I love the link provided by User:JDoorjam...how appropriate...but you see, the conspiracy theorists don't want to read that ...it might upset their insensibilities. I loved especially the wood embers coming over the peak in Yosemite National Park...yes, wood embers...but no, it's in the national park...it must be steel. I fought forest fires for some time as an employee of the National Park Service...I saw a steel vehicle metal...even parts of the engine block melted..trust me, you don't need a smelter to melt steel...I've seen it. You see, these conspiracy theorist don't want to listen to reason..their minds are already made up and all they intend to do is troll here. I'm done with this trolling nonsense. I will use the powers vested in me by concensus to block disruptive editors that continue to fill this talk page up with their nonsense. I'll block them and end this charade.--MONGO 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm happy to discuss that "debunking" site provided by doorjam. TruthSeeker1234 06:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"but the NIST report which you quote explicitly says that the molten material is most likely aluminum." - - Correct! This is the NIST explanation for the documented pre-collapse molten explananda; that is part of the official collapse NISTory. The language in the report switches frequently and interchangeable from "possibly aluminum" to "probably aluminum" and to "the aluminum" when describing the composition of the cascade. If you prefer that relatively viscous bright-yellow radiant cascade to be described as "most likely aluminum" in the article, just do it. Make our day! 58.106.69.176 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) addendum:

molten metals viscosity for dummies: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/metals_viscosity.gif 58.106.69.176 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, just as a word of advice, you really do lose a lot of credibility when you claim that NIST is composed entirely of individuals willing to lie to cover for the President of the United States' murder conspiracy, especially when you use words like "NISTory" and "explananda." It makes you sound a little kooky. I'm not sure what your point is about the language "interchangeability" in the report; it looks pretty consistent. Clearly they believe it to be aluminum, but "the most-likely-aluminum" is a sort of bulky phrase, and so having established they believe the substance to be aluminum, they just used "aluminum" instead... I'm not sure what you're saying the big deal is with that. What are your thoughts on the pooling theories offered at that site, that the floors were anything but flat and so aluminum would have a chance to pool, heat, and spill out the window? JDoorjam Talk 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I must say that you lost even the chimera of credibility, in my mind, when you attacked a strawman of your own fabrication regarding the composition of NIST, and then went on to demonstrate your ignorance of the meaning of the word "explanada." Do you have anything to say about the viscosity of molten aluminum? Do you have anything to say about the inclusion of pre and post collapse molten metal in the main article? I am not particularly interested in discussing your personal theories or anecdotes, or even NISTs official explanation of molten metal explananda (a phenomena that requires explaining): I am simply interested in having the documented evidence included, rather than supressed, ridiculed, and trivialized by unscientific goons. Read the report instead of pretending that you did. 58.106.69.176 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Strawman of your own fabrication? Look at Truthseeker's posts. Either NIST is an authority or it's not. Which is it?
So, pray tell, what does explanada mean? I looked it up in OED, too. Nada. Perhaps you meant explanandum?. Btw, using SAT words you dug out of a dictonary doesn't make you sound smarter, it makes you sound like a tool. --Mmx1 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit hostile, don't you think? Thank for you the explanation of "explananda"; I haven't heard it in common usage before. I also can't find it at dictionary.com or a Google definition search, so I do hope you'll forgive my ignorance. I don't have any molten metal "anecdotes" to tell, though that would be quite the cocktail-party conversation to be able to fall back on. My apologies about NIST; from your tone and method of argument -- the serial insertion numerous references which you contend back up your point -- I assumed you were simply TruthSeeker, not logged in. TS has said that NIST is inherently untrustworthy, which I simply can't agree with. "Unscientific goons" implies you have a science background? If so, especially a structural engineering background, could you comment on the link I provided in regards to the compacting of the building releasing enough energy to cause extreme heat in the debris pile? (You said you weren't a fan of "personal theories" but this one isn't mine.) If not, I assume you are simply an unscientific non-goon? And do you have any thoughts about the pooling of aluminum? JDoorjam Talk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a SAT word is - my dictionary lists SAT as the past tense of SIT. You sound like a potty-mouthed, ignorant, juvenile tool, MMX. I suppose a pissing contest by juveniles about the use of words is always better than discussing the ABUNDANCE OF MOLTEN evidence. Good "work", MMX. 58.106.69.176 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) addendum: thank you, doorjam, for your integrity. 58.106.69.176 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"and then went on to demonstrate your ignorance of the meaning of the word "explanada." " - 58.106.69.176. If you're going to insult people based on their knowledge or lack thereof of obscure words....it might help to spell the word correctly. --Mmx1 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a typo - if you look carefully, you will see that JAMMER managed to look up the correct typing that I had deployed already. I see that pissing contests about words and typos, rather than THE ABUNDANCE OF MOLTEN METAL AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE MAIN ARTICLE, is your raison d'être, MMX. I also retract my hasty "thanks" to JAMMErR who is doing a fine job as a JAMMER, trying to goad people into discussions about his personal theory of molten metal INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. 58.106.69.176 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple. The authoritative source, NIST, says it's aluminum. Everything else is your (false) original research about viscosity and is simply uncitable and unincludable. NIST is being precise in its statements. Without actual samples, it can't say definitively that it is aluminum, but reason indicates it to be the most likely possibility.
I don't think I'll convince you of that, nor do I want to waste my breath doing so. If you think the NIST fabricates stories....there's really no point in arguing in you. What I will do is have fun at your expense.
I assumed good faith and looked up "explananda" and "explanada", online and in OED (unfortunately it's a university resource so no open link) and found NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO (do you need a definition for those, too?). I even suggested the correct spelling "explanandum" along with the note that even using the correct spelling won't help if it's so obscure the majority of people don't understand it (along with a jab at your intentions in using such haughty language). Oh, and google would have quickly ascertained what SAT meant in this context; unlike the words you made up. If you were to take such an exam in the near future, as I'm sure you will, please work on your reading comprehension and diction as well. Neither of your "typing"s of the word explanadum were correct. --Mmx1 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's not my theory about the metal; it's in the NIST report and is also on other "conspiracy debunking" web sites. For the record, I haven't decided whether I believe it should or should not be in the article. Just because I'm talking doesn't mean I'm advocating anything for the moment. That's why I'm asking questions about the metal, about the rubble pile, etc. I'd like to come to a consensus on the matter, and before I can help with that, I need to know where I stand on the issue. So, yes, I am trying to "goad" people into conversation. We seem to forget it sometimes, but this is the discussion page. JDoorjam Talk 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pretend that aluminum has a new property of low-viscosity when molten, I don't really care - it is not "new research", but a factual and intractable property of the element - http://transp.eng.auth.gr/iatp/Al_Viscosity.pdf - but I don't care if you wish to pretend, I really don't. ALL I CARE is that the FACT that an ABUNDANCE of MOLTEN METAL was CASCADING FROM THE TOWER prior to collapse, and AN EVEN MORE STAGGERING QUANTITY of MOLTEN METAL WAS OBSERVED, PHOTOGRAPHED, REPORTED AND THERMALLY MAPPED at GROUND ZERO. I don't care about the explanation for it - just stop HIDING IT FROM THE PEOPLE.

And if you want to block my IP, JAMMER, for using EXACTLY THE SAME ABUSIVE POTTY-MOUTHED TERMS that are apparently KOSHER FOR MMX to deploy at its leisure, then PLEASE GO AHEAD AND EXPOSE YOUR DOUBLE-STANDARDS TO THE AUDIENCE HERE. Don't send PRIVATE BEHIND-THE-SCENES THREATS. OKAY? Just DO IT - permanently. 58.106.69.176 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I warned both of you to keep a cool head, though your warning was more stern because your rhetoric was more vitriolic. This post is over the line. Per your request, you have been blocked. JDoorjam Talk 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what about the molten steel/iron observed, reported, documented, photographed at ground zero? Please, without the personal attacks, could anyone please explain why it should not go in the article? We have multiple mainstream sources.

TruthSeeker1234 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, AND YOU SUCK! Just kiddin'.  :-) I think the concern, or at least my concern, is that you and others want to mention molten metal in the article to use as a foothold to intimate that thermite was used to bring the building down. I would object to any language along those lines. In and of itself, I think the molten metal is a fascinating detail that brings into perspective just how volatile and horrifying the situation was, and is a powerful tool in visualizing what was going on that day. So long as we leave it at molten metal, I'd be ok with it. Tentatively, I would not object to two sentences being inserted into the article, one talking about the collapse of the building, along the lines of "a molten substance was seen pouring out the window; NIST asserts the substance was 'most likely molten aluminum' which pooled in the building before pouring out the side.[7]" and a second about the rubble pile, saying something like "even weeks after the collapse of the buildings, there were numerous reports of molten metal being uncovered during cleanup of the wreckage." Or something along those lines. I'd think both would need mainstream sources, like the NIST report for the first and major newspapers or reports for the second. (WTF?!??!?!? Compromise?!?) Let me know what you think. JDoorjam Talk 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
JDoorjam, what you suggest might be appropriate for Collapse of the World Trade Center. I don't think that level of detail belongs in this article. I also believe that this is just a lever to eventually include speculation that Silverstein and his minions did it, with a link to a DVD you can buy for 9.99 plus shipping that explains the whole scheme. I have the same concerns about including it at Collapse of the World Trade Center, as well as issues with due weight, original research, and the lack of secondary sources who have presented this as important, but that's a discussion for a different page, and one we've had a few times already.Tom Harrison Talk 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, which as I've said is a concern I certainly share. And you do raise a good point about reliable secondary sources not presenting the metal as important. OR is pretty easily overcome, but the other issues are certainly problematic, as you suggest. This is why I don't know where I land on this. TS, can you understand where we're coming from with this concern? Trying to say this as civilly as possible, it is important to me to keep "inside job" speculation out of the article, and this seems like it could possibly be a way to wedge that content in. I'm not trying to accuse you or anyone of anything here, but again, I do hope you can understand this concern. JDoorjam Talk 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be appropriate for Collapse of the World Trade Center, but it is not a suitable level of detail for this article. Peter Grey 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Required: What is the test for inclusion?

I am unclear on a couple things here. The case for Molton Metal observations at the WTC site has met the test for verifiability with multiple references from reliable sources including both NIST and FEMA as well as numerous mainstream media accounts. But Molten Metal is to be excluded primarily because it "... could possibly be used {by the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists} as a lever to eventually include speculation that ..." {Subtext Implied by editor}

By that same reasoning, I really ought to remove my earlier factual contribution to The Collapse section of this article [[309]]. Facts can be dangerous things For example the timeline may be used in future by lunatic conspiracy theorists, or possibly even ordinary rational truthseeking Wikipedians, as a wedge to point out the fact that by all accounts, with the exception of the Fuji Tower and the Archos Ricon, no modern steel reinforced building has EVER collapsed due to fire alone certainly not after burning for little more than an hour. We are still patiently waiting for verifiable confirmation of those from EngineerEd, Morton devonshire, MONGO and the rest of their allies on those or any other buildings which might have fallen in a Global Progressive Collapse,

Tom, Peter and co, please explain exactly what the test is for inclusion here? If I understand correctly, your primary opposition to the inclusion of MOLTEN METAL is that including it might possibly lead to facts that do not support the official account of events entering the article. And your primary rationale for that opposition is that allowing even a single fact that does not support the official account of events into this article, could possibly lead to others? We can meet your tests for Original Research, Secondary Sources, and even Due Weight - but there are certain facts that do meet the test for inclusion which can never meet the test for agreeing with the official account I hope everyone on this page understands the difference and what it means for Wikipedia.

Please clarify this for me as I'm starting to believe my contributions aren't welcome here [310]. Maybe Wikipedia would be better off if we went back to this version [311] which is nice and vague and won't risk raising too many questions. Digiterata 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)'

It is "molten aluminum" as the definitive authority and primary citation, NIST, states. You cannot deliberately hide it under "molten metal" to redirect it to something which the report does not states, namely your molten steel hypothesis. Nevertheless, as Peter Grey points out, it is an appropriate matter for the Collapse of the World Trade Centers article, not the general article, and its placement in the latter is out of scope and suspiciously so. --Mmx1 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Molten Metal" was used to reflect the fact that multiple eyewhitnesses observed liquid metal. If you would like to add a sentence explaining that NIST performed an analysis of the Molten Metal after the fact and determined that it was most likely aluminum, that would be fine by me. The point here is that NIST does acknowledge that there was Molten Metal observed at the WTC.
Again, can someone please clarify, Exactly what is the test for inclusion to this article? Digiterata 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that in addition to ALL CAPS you can use COLOR? You could even choose the color to match Truthseeker's photoshop-based spectrographic analysis. Maybe you could even whomp up an animated gif, with a rivet motif and a teeny thermite grenade that would pop and then cascade down the screen. Of course like original research, that would probably go better on a blog. Tom Harrison Talk 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Tom I kind of expected more from you than that. If you are going to exclude all reference to Molten Metal from the main article, please at least have the courtesy to answer my question and explain your reasoning. If the principles of Wikipedia stand for anything on this page, you at least owe us that. What is the test for inclusion to this article, please? Digiterata 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Undecided what purpose it serves in this article...it would be better, if anywhere, if in the subarticle on the actual collapse. It has nothing to do with the attacks per se...I previously linked the website that discussed GPC and I had nothing to do with anything stating that other buildings had acted this way, but the link I provided earlier discussed what the content was. I see you mention that no building had ever collapsed due to fire alone...what part about wide body jets slamming into the buildings did you miss?--MONGO 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better answer? Ideally something based on Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines? [[312]] Digiterata 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources? Due weight? Original research? Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple Digiterata. What goes in is anything that is relevant, interesting, and backed by a reputable source. What is a reputable source? Why, it's whatever TomHarrison and MONGO say it is. In this case, they say it is anything which supports the official version of events. What if there are conflicting data from reputable sources? Then we must rely on the undue weight clause. Which items are excluded under the undue weight clause? Why, it's whatever MONGO and TomHarrison say. What about NPOV? Forget NPOV. NPOV is not important here in this article. We must NOT use the neutral point of view, because that would violate the undue weight clause, and might mention unreputable sources. Just ask Tom Harrison and MONGO.

Want to test the theory? I'm game Digiterata. Put some facts in the article . I'll back you, and so will other truthseekers. Eventually MONGO and co. will block us, but I think it is important that we try. Ethics and the scientific method demand it. -TruthSeeker1234

69.236.23.7 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What scientific method? That's the problem with the Scholars/Truth Movement, they don't employ scientific methods in their analysis. And yes, Tom Harrison and MONGO get to decide whether things added to an article are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR -- that's what Admins are for, to render opinions based upon Wikipedia policy. Morton DevonshireYo

I'm sorry to have to be an asshole, but the debate is over. You conspircay theorists, in all honesty, simply don't know what you are talking about. Morton is correct, the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" do not emply the scientific method. Let me explain what the scientific method means. Scientific method means that qualified professionals, such as me, explain the situation to unqualified ameteurs. That is why we have journals. We explain it, you listen.

9/11 has been studied, and studied, and studied again. This was almost 5 years ago. Please, in honor of the victims, stop this madness, stop supporting the terrorists. Grow up, get a life, and allow this article to be finished. You have a page called "9/11 conspiracy theories". Go nuts there. Please stop dishonoring the dead. They deserve better. EngineerEd 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Welcome Back! I appreciate your educating us here on the scientific method: qualified professionals, such as you, explaining the situation to unqualified amateurs - such as us. Very enlightening. Ed, since you are back I was wondering if you could, as a qualified professional, explain to us lay persons what global progressive collapse is all about? I'm still quite confused. Perhaps the scientific method could be of assistance?
By the way Ed, you're glorious return to this page has inspired me to continue to contribute on this page. I'm pretty busy at the moment - work, move, life, etc - but promise not to give up until this article resembles something passably NPOV. As a proud Wikipedian, I wouldn't respect myself if I left this injustice uncorrected. Cheers for Ed the Engineer! Curious what would turn up if we checked for sockpuppet status? Digiterata 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

another wiki

Hey, guys why dont you go and waste this wiki: [313]. Im sure youll agree it reads like something i would write... --Striver 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

The disputed tag is being added to the article to reflect how this is one of the top controversial articles in Wikipedia. Elfguy 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. I see no point in applying the tag permanently to all controversial pages. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There does need to be some notice on the page to refute the baldfaced assertion that the events of September 11, 2001 were of a terrorist nature. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is simply not true. --71.36.251.182 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your denial of the terrorist nature of the 9/11 attacks leaves little room for doubt that you've committed intellectual suicide. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can find this evidence here: 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's even a link from this page! How convenient! --Mmx1 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't even go into the inadequacies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - it is missing loads of important information. More to the point is that the "official story" is given top billing in this, the official article, in spite of serious doubts that the "terrorist plot" was perpetrated by the "terrorists" balmed in the article. There needs to be some prominent note at the top of this article addressing the controversy. --71.36.251.182 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem, there is no SERIOUS DOUBT, if the doubters were SERIOUS, then they would present SERIOUS scientific analysis, not hacked-together criticism by non-notable non-experts with degrees in Theology and expertise as Software Engineers. Morton DevonshireYo


Excluding the conspiracy theory fairy tales, which are not in good faith, there does not seem to be any genuine dispute of the content of the article. Peter Grey 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The official stories are conspiracy theories. Which fairy tales are you talking about? That Hani Honjour and his co-conspirators somehow boarded a jet with no tickets, overwhelmed the pilots, somehow navigated all the way from Ohio to the Pentagon, somehow entered the code to turn the transponder off, somehow avoided air defenses, somehow made the 270 degree downward spiral, (thus avoiding the easy approach where the top brass had offices), and executed the tree-top approach at full speed, somehow defeating ground effect, and crashed at ground level into the only part of the building that was mostly evacuated and heavily reinforced?

Hani Hanjour was the only one initially reported as having no ticket. Hanjour probably made the 270 degree turn because he was navigating by landmarks, as you would notice if you took a look at the final flight path. How was he supposed to know where the top brass were or that the area he hit was reinforced? The hijackers had knives and mace and had taken martial arts and weightlifting. He had the requisite skills (see also 9/11 Commission Chapter 7 note #170). Other aircraft with nonfunctioning transponders have flown over the Pentagon to the nearby Ronald Reagan International Airport, and flights go by the Pentagon daily. The last time missile batteries were used at the Pentagon prior to 9/11 was in the early 1960s. There's plenty of literature on the USAF response which is beyond the scope of this brief reply. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or which fairy tales?

Like a gravitational collapse somehow contains enough energy to pulverize a building into pyroclastic clouds of dust?

Or which ones? Clarify please.

TruthSeeker1234 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an example, that the collapse of a building could be deliberately caused by some improbable heat source smuggled into a building with thousands of people that melted some unknown substance that a) is not hot enough to be steel, and b) was not located near any structural component. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
enough energy to pulverize a building into pyroclastic clouds of dust Well, obviously. But feel free to share your calculation of the potential engery of the tower and how much you think the energy shortfall is. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, controlled demolitions have occurred many time, entire companies specialize in them. To characterize this as improbable is disingenous. It is backwards. Controlled demolition has a distinct scientific advantage over any other explanation, because they have actually occured, and are well understood. All other explanations require new theories, new science.

Here are two nice papers with the some of the energy calculations

[314] and [315]TruthSeeker1234 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything not on wtc7.net? Something from a more neutral party, or published in a major scientific journal or something? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just personally don't trust wtc7.net as a good neutral source on these things. JDoorjam Talk 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to look at anyone's energy calculations about the dust clouds or whatever. Where are they? Also, just so ya know, I don't consider al Qa'ida to be a "neutral" source. They are a suspect in this whole deal. But so are top officials in the Bush administration. We don't trust government sources to be "neutral". Any scientists out there NOT on the government payroll? Not too many.TruthSeeker1234 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Secret demolition has not ocurred many times - catastrophic failure without demolition has. All other explanations require new theories, new science. Wrong - engineers all understand it fine. (Unlike wtc7.net and their theory that 100% of the concrete and 0% of other construction materials caused the dust cloud.) Peter Grey 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give me a link to a catastrophic failure which resembles 9/11 in any of the important respects - sudden onset, symmetry, collapse times, pulverization, squibs, horizontal ejection, pyroclastic flows, bright flashes, molten metal, eyewitness reports of explosions. Thanks. Here's a promise. If you can show me a natural collapse that comes anywhere close to resembling 9/11, I will stop editing all 9/11 articles forever. TruthSeeker1234 00:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Every catastrophic failure, by definition, featured sudden onset. Peter Grey 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any molten steel at the WTC but there was molten aluminum. In examples I've previously cited, the buildings weren't hit by planes so they didn't have that molten aluminum. Sounds of explosions have numerous explanations that are much more plausible than bombs. The sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc. There were no demolition squibs; the fact that it is smoke & debris puffs is evident from the fact that they appear after the collapse begins and only after lots of movement and sagging; look at the collapse frame by frame and you will see that windows are breaking as a natural result of the collapse. When the towers were collapsing, they created excessive pressure on each floor and blew out objects on the floors. Again, the Twin Towers collapsed at least 63% slower than freefalls which in my book is not "near" free-fall speed. L'Ambiance wasn't hit by a jet. The collapse, even though it took place during construction, shows that when such a building can't support a given load it will undergo progressive collapse. Just remember that historically, no other buildings have been hit by 500+ mph fuel-loaded passenger jets and had their trusses' fire-proofing blown off, much less had later load-bearing steel beams sheared off and vertical load-bearing core columns severed by jets. In WTC 7 there was a 20 story gash and the bottom floor fires raged for 6 or 7 hours and had these weakened floors supporting 40+ stories, and the steel wasn't reinforced by concrete, unlike the Madrid Windsor building. No more simplistic statements that the buildings collapsed by "fire" because there were many other factors which were historical firsts. You can't expect other buildings with different designs to perform the same as the WTC towers. Firefighters and others worried that One Meridian Plaza would do a pancake collapse. McCormick Plaza shows that steel structures can collapse because of fire alone. The partial collapse of Ronan Point is another example of a progressive collapse and had engineers worry about progressive collapse. Gravitational collapse is a perfectly adequate explanation of the pulverized concrete. Keep in mind that less than 1/3 of the dust was made up of concrete, and that most of the dust particles were bigger than 60 microns, with up to a 5th exceeding 300 microns in size. Hoffman's calculations involve numerous flawed assumptions. The alleged energy deficit is removed if the relative humidity of the clouds' contents was slightly above 2%. Wind, etc. also contribute to the clouds' expansion, not simply heat. Heat was added from office contents, the jet impacts, the burning fuel, etc. How much of the concrete was turned into dust, anyway? The cores were destroyed by the grinding force of the massive collapsing buildings, and lacked diagonal bracing which would've given them lateral strength. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is a longwinded way of admitting that nothing in history remotely resembles what happened on 9/11, except all of the controlled demoltions, which for some strange reason are very much like what happened on 9/11.

Huysman starts out by stating there was no molten steel at the WTC, but there are photographs and multiple published reports of molten steel, as we've been though a dozen times. The stuff in the photo cannot be aluminum, because aluminum would be a runny liquid. And he goes from there.

I ask everyone now to look at this picture [316] and answer this question for me: The collapse is about half-over, and it appears that most of the material from above has been converted to dust, and has been ejected outside the footprint. At the point in time this photo was taken, where is the mass pushing down on the intact, undamaged structure?

And what is the explanation for the dust which is going upwards?

TruthSeeker1234 04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dust gnomes, duuuuhhh. While I was trying to find a less non-sensical answer to your question, I found this delightful non-sequitur: an analysis of WTC dust. It's by a private contractor and not the government, so you know it's not just another Federal 9/11 dust analysis cover-up. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The so-called intact, undamaged structure had already received an impact loading at that point and was already failing, plus most of the material was not converted and was merely behind the dust cloud. (Remember a dust cloud is mostly air.) Peter Grey 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I put this tag up, I go away for 1 day, come back to a 3 pages hot debate about everything from the intro, the word 'terrorist', the article itself and a bunch of different issues. Wow. The tag DISPUTED stays. Elfguy 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because the same proposals get brought up time and time again and fail to reach consensus does not justify a dispute tag. --Mmx1 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the very fact that they do means that the tag is appropriate. Elfguy 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because there are people who think Evolution is false and repeatedly insist on editing the article to reflect their views does not mean the edits will meet consensus or that the article deserves a dispute tag; in fact it's pretty clear that the "disputes" are the same old ones that have, are, and will fail to meet consensus. --Mmx1 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is in compliance with Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOR, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, it's not at all the same thing. Here we're dealing with actual scientific reports, things that are physically improbable, and many people having a problem with this story being presented as 'the truth' and the rest as 'insane conspiracy crackhead stuff', which is exactly the way this article is written and is very obviously being done on purpose by the 4-5 regulars here. In fact even Evolution has more space about opposing views, called 'controversy' not a demeaning term, and only some religious people have spoken against it, but most importantly no fact contraticts it, unlike here. Elfguy 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The defining characteristic of the "dispute" here is that a hypothetical conspiracy is frequently invoked when errors of fact are pointed out in the conspiracy theory narratives. There are no good-faith disputes with this article. Peter Grey 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm tired of listening to your crap about bad faith. Go ahead and tell me my argument about undue weight was done in bad faith. SkeenaR 16:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you mean. There are a lot of different 'alternative theories'. Many have issues with them, but the very reason they exist is that there are so many issues with the official story. That alone means there is a dispute. The facts as presented in the article are said to not be accurate by various people here, organizations, various papers, videos, movies, media sources and foreign governments. That's what the tag is for. Elfguy 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why we provide space for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, along with a brief summary and link here. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of fatalities for Flight 93 is incorrect

The table lists 45 fatalities for flight 93 (including passengers and hijackers), but the Flight 93 page puts the number at 44. One of these is incorrect.

Terrorist inflation

What's happened to this article? The last time I saw it it looked something like this [317], and the word terrorism was avoided because it's clearly a loaded term. Now we have it smattered all around the intro like some sort of propaganda campaign. I mean, honestly, "Approximately 3,000 people died in these terrorist attacks." ? You may as well say "Approximately 3,000 people died in these evil attacks by cruel-hearted, Jesus-hating Islamic boogeymen." The word is just plastered all around needlessly. I thought a long time ago people on this talk page showed significant disagreement as to its usage and decided it should only be applied by 3rd party sources, rather than by flatly defining it as terrorism. Do we lose anything by removing the word "terrorist" in the intro? Can't we just say that 3,000 people died in the attacks, or that they were coordinated attacks? I don't take issue with saying that popular media reported the acts as terrorism, but using it like we do here is POV. Sarge Baldy 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comment. The actions of those that committed the attacks on 9/11 are best descriped as terrorism...no other term more accurately describes the actions. It's only a loaded term to those that have some crazy notions of what right and wrong are all about.--MONGO 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Attacks doesn't describe the actions? Flying planes into a building doesn't describe the actions? Terrorism doesn't describe anything, it's just a very subjective adjective tacked on so people can dismiss the motivations of the attackers entirely. It's like saying "violent attacks" instead of simply "attacks", you're not really adding anything except a negative connotation. All you're adding is a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
ummm...have a look..see what the UN feels are proper definitions: We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism. [318]--MONGO 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Another--MONGO 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And by that definition the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a very obvious example of terrorism. But we don't start that article out by calling those bombings terrorist attacks. If nothing else we need to be consistent in our use of the term. (And obviously the UN is taking a particular moral stance in that line, where Wikipedia is about maintaining a NPOV.) Sarge Baldy 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Then add that nonsense POV to those articles...this one is about the events of 9/11. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are acts of terrorism?...are they acts done in peacetime? If you knew anything about the events that led to the decisions to use atomic weapons on Japan the evidence would definitely indicate that lives were spared overall...not lost...and countries fight wars to win, not lose. The UN is taking a stance to define what the term means...they are oftentimes way to the left of where the U.S. stance is.--MONGO 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I know very well what was going on with Japan. They were on the brink of surrender, and would have much sooner if we hadn't demanded for absolute surrender. Then we decided it was time we test our newest toys on some yellow people. As you've just shown, the UN doesn't even have a specific definition of its own. And most definitions of terrorism aren't limited to "peace time". Even if they were, Al Qaeda HAD declared war on the United States. So arguably it wasn't a time of peace, and 9/11 was no more terrorism than US military forces shelling the homes of Iraqi civilians. Sarge Baldy 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure...they were grabbing every pitchfork they could find...so long as the Emperor said war, they were going to war. The war became more horrendus the closer we got to the mainland...connect the dots. Beware of revisionist historians.--MONGO 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think changes to Hiroshima are in order, be bold and make them, but I think terrorist is the right word for this page. It's not neutrality to pretend that one man's terrorist is another man's freedon-fighter. You seem to suggest in your comment above that anyone who would call these people terrorists would call them Jesus-hating Muslims. Are you implying that those who disagree with you are driven by some kind of religious bias, rather than by a desire for truthful presentation? Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just concerned "terrorist" is being used as a moralistic dismissal. For instance, you could say "The violent bombing killed 33 people" or you can say "The bombing killed 33 people". Both might be correct, but the first one is working from a certain moralistic vantage point. I think the overuse of the word "terrorist" here suggests it is taking a certain moral vantage point, and that it constitutes a POV. I think that users can fill in their own moral descriptions, without us needing to provide them. I think it's our job to describe rather than inscribe subjective terminology. Sarge Baldy 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that "terrorist" does belong in the article, and is rightly in the first sentence; I was bold and removed it from the last sentence of the intro, however, because it was a bit redundant there and made the readability a little weird. JDoorjam Talk 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is perfectly applicable and appropriate term to use here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that it is not "applicable", the problem is to have an article that has a much more neutral point of view end avoid moralistic connotations of the facts.--Pokipsy76 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with using 'terrorist' here since it may be argued that's what it was. But I'd just like to point out that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a much better written article, that does use the term State terrorism in the opposition part, and does give several pages to the supporters and similar to the opponents. You might want to learn from reading it on what makes a good, balanced article. Elfguy 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In the interests of maintaining NPOV, I have removed one reference to "terrorist" attacks, and changed "terrorists" to "hijackers" where that was more appropriate. All remaining uses of the term "terror" appear to be acceptable. --24.20.48.199 06:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 20

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bin Laden Photos

Is it necessary to have two photos of him included? KyuuA4 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Query about fatality figures: hijackers

A thought just occurred to me. Do the fatality figures for the planes given on this page include the hijackers? 'cos I'm not sure if they should. Either way we should make it clear whether or not they do. Kingal86 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As much as we do not wish to view the hijackers as human - the sad truth is: they are indeed humans. Obviously, they died in the attacks. As humans who died, that's a fatality. I went ahead to post crash infoboxes into the individual articles of the 3 out of the 4 airliners. United 93 already had a box, so I copied that. In the remaining 3, I added in parentheses a note (incl. # hijackers). KyuuA4 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks. Commas in dates, geographical locations, &c., function as marks of parenthesis. The parenthesis has be closed by a second mark. Think of it like "September 11 (2001) attacks" and the "Arlington (Virginia) Pentagon". We don't leave off ")"—so we don't leave off the comma. Just as we write "Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A., is the location of the Pentagon" and "Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was an important day", we also do this when the multi-word term functions attributively. Associated Press example from late March 2005: "Four suspected Islamist radicals went on trial in Paris on charges that they provided false documents to two Tunisians who posed as journalists and killed the celebrated Afghan resistance hero Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States." — President Lethe 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

  • Strong Oppose There is only one problem with the proposed change: it's not English, the misguided punctuation of some AP transcriber on autopilot to the contrary. But I think this is fatal. Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Pmanderson. I had to read the proposal three or four times just to understand what it was trying to say! -- MisterHand 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose; per above (what you say?) Pacific Coast Highway (blah • typa-typa) 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: September 11, 2001 is a single semantic unit, therefore matching parenthetical commas is irrelevant. Peter Grey 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree* See my entry under "Title is incorrectly punctuated" on this discussion page. It is, admittedly, slightly awkward to punctuate correctly when using "Septebmer 11, 2001," as an adjectival phrase (i.e., modifiying "attacks" in "the September 11, 2001, attacks were devastating"). There are three ways to avoid that awkwardness: (1) rephrase as "the attacks of September 11, 2001, were devastating," which is not much better, (2) write in the European manner as "the 11 September 2001 attacks were devastating," or (3) follow the suggestion below and drop the year, as in "the September 11 attacks were devastating." The third suggestion is probably best. (No one will confuse these attacks with the "September 11 attacks" of some other year.) Otherwise, we should punctuate correctly with two commas. 66.146.213.165 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: compare: Pearl Harbour, attack — Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. chocolateboy 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

A change to September 11 attacks would remove this figment; is it not done because of some ambiguity? Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like September 11 attacks. Maurreen 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also agree with this alternative, but I would prefer "9/11 attacks" even more as it is far and away the most common name and has, because of use in media, become widely understood even abroad. Jonathunder 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request:not moved

It is clear that this is not supported, and I agree with the arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What "arguments"? I see arguments here in favor of punctuating correctly (i.e., with commas setting off the year, a parenthetical element), but I haven't seen any "arguments" in favor of sticking one comma in the middle of the sentence for no reason. There are a few general refusals to change, but saying "no, you're wrong" is not an "argument." Find one authoritative source that supports using one comma in this way, and I'll give it up.65.107.70.253 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface at xv: "September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States." Anyone have any reputable counter-examples?65.107.70.253 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also the New York Times, June 24, 2006, A3: "majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey . . . said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs had carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States"; New York Times, June 19, 2006, A11: "The United States said a small cell of Al Qaeda, made up of foreigners, had set up shop in Mogadishu after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were being protected by court leaders"; New York Times, April 30, 2006, 44: "Mr. Deutch also began to require special approval for the use of unsavory characters as agency informants -- a policy suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when officers argued that only terrorists would know of plans for the next attack." I can provide thousands of other examples from authoritative sources. Anyone have any persuasive authorities in favor of using only one comma? I couldn't find any. 65.107.70.253 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream

Read about the mainstream coverage:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm

Its a disgrace for wikipedia that the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews are deleted as non-notable when aljazeera stats:

Sheen, star of the TV sitcom Two and a Half Men, provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.--Striver 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
oh well, we'll manage somehow. --Golbez 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Media storm" is rather subjective, but it might have a place in one of the secondary articles. I would point out that calling for an independent investigation is nothing unreasonable, only calling for an independent investigation with the presumption of what it might find. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Falling Man

We've got a lot of pictures on this page. Does anybody object to the removal of that one? I know it has meaning and stuff, but it seems excessive for it to be on the page. It's like a shock photo. Graphic and disturbing. I think we should just link to it's page. SkeenaR 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse for examples. --Mmx1 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to be snide, Skeena, but 9/11 was graphic and disturbing. The photo bothers me, too, but I feel pretty strongly that it should stay. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't feel that strongly that it should be removed. But, just so you know what I mean, in the case of the torture photos I think the graphic imagery is more pertinent to the article. The imagery is the proof, and the imagery is what caused the controversy. I think this is different. I don't think anyone would argue that we need severed limbs or entrails in this article either. SkeenaR 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can replace it with a picture that more accurately covers the tragedy and number of deaths related to 9/11 then I say go for it. This is a famous picture depecting a time period during the event (the jumpers) that should be included in the article. The fact that the picture has its own article is almost enough to retain the picture in the main article. --Mattarata 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. SkeenaR 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You may recall that there were two brothers who filmed inside one of the lobbies. In that footage, which was broadcast on the CBS network during prime time in 2002, there are the regular sounds of many bodies regularly crashing through a glass atrium. So a photo of one person falling may misrepresent the actual event on the low side. I was sort of surprised that the man could not be identified for us, which would help make the events more real.

Another one

Here guys, another one you can insult: [319]--Striver 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Challenging misinformation does not require insults. Peter Grey 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate what are the credentials of this musician to make opinions about engineering. did he study in architecture or engineering at which university? Mieciu K 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical problem

There is an obvious mathematical error under the first subheading ("The attacks"). The fatality total is listed as 2986, made up of the sums of 265, 2595, and 125. The problem is pretty clear: 265 + 2595 + 125 = 2985, not 2986.

I attempted to fix this error by adding one to the plane total (I based the 266 number on the fatality table in the "fatalities" section of the entry), but another editor erased my correction and changed the "fatalities" section to reflect a 265 number. I do not dispute this change, as it was cited and appears to be correct. However, because the 2986 number was likely based on the faulty flight fatalities, I am going to revise the total casualty number down by one.

I have not provided a source for the 2985 number because, frankly, sources conflict. I have begun to look for a reliable source for fatality numbers, and if I find a good one I will revise all the numbers to reflect it. However, given that we have conflicting sources, I think it makes sense to make the Wiki entry internally consistent. Right now there is a blatant mathematical error on the page, which is a major problem. If anyone does not like my revision, please feel free to fix it--but re-creating an obvious math error on a major wiki page by reverting to the old version is NOT a "fix." We should not have a total that is different from the sum of its supposed parts.

Looks like I forgot to sign my entry. I originally posted this the evening of June 28, 2006. SharkAttack 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried to find sources to reference all the figures, with the most recent source being a CNN article (also reported in other media outlets) from October 2003. I haven't found anything more recent, though it's possible that the figures have been revised since then. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon

Guys, look what Alex linked to: [320]. Lately, Alex have leand more and more to including material that supports that the pentagon was hit by a plane. I find the arguements compelling. I have never been to sure regarding either version, and i still have unanswered questions regarding Pentagon, but if asked, i now support that it was hit by a plance. --Striver 13:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Although original research and opinons aren't allowed, you have to develop and hold your own opinions about the way a subject is presented in order to improve an article. So if you think other theories should be covered, then you must find outside research that supports your opinion, such as the Zogby poll mentioned above that find 42% believe the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up. Incidentally, the animate video is one of the best and most thorough examples what the 9/11 Commission says happened to the jet that hit the Pentagon.
Wow, an animated movie with pictures of unknown origin, you really shook my world. And as for the polls: most people living on our planet belive in God, but that is no proof that God exists. Mieciu K 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The video doesn't show a Boeing 757. This picture also doesn't show damage that would be caused by a Boeing 757. It's worth noting that some windows are not broken. Engineers at Purdue produced a simulation of the theory behind the Pentagon attacks.

External Link

I want to add...

http://www.911.colleenmcgarry.com

Can I get permission?


I want to add...

http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/WarOnTerror.shtml#Sept11

Can I get permission?

You don't really need permission: be bold! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of links. What makes this website significant that we should add a link to this website? Mieciu K 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility

I think wikipedia should try and remain unbiased, even if such emotionally disturbing topics are involved. Widely disputed facts should not be presented as "the truth" without reservation.

Please someone tell me what happend to bin Laden. Is this what kidney-dialasis will do to your face?


— Xiutwel (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Widely disputed? No, strongly disputed by a small, dedicated group of propagandists relying on disreputable sources. There is no dispute among reports by mainstream, verifiable media sources about who is responsible: Osama Bin Laden. Morton DevonshireYo

Morton/Matt, I've moved your comment here, as you inserted it in the middle of my comment. Now my reaction: mainstream reports are citing the government view, without much of a dispute. So far I agree. This makes the media sources verifiable, but not necessarily trustworthy. About the propagandists: you are entitled to your view about this. The LA conference end of June however made headlines in the major newspapers here in Holland, I think mainly because of the size of the conference (1200 participants). It is not just a few internet freaks and paranoid people, but it also includes former ministers Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow so I maintain my view that the dispute is not only strong, but also wide. And this means that wikipedia must be very careful in presenting the facts, and not beliefs as if they were facts. The mainstream view is a belief as much as the "propagandists'" view. That's my opinion. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The media may adopt the same narrative as the US Government, but not necessarily by blind repetition - it may be that they've independently reached similar conclusions. It does not make them absolutely trustworthy, but it does mean your personal scepticism is unfounded. In theory, it's great that people question the account, and explore other possibilities; however, no evidence challenging the mainstream story has yet been found. Peter Grey 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
X, I don't know if you understand how the American media works -- the press does not stand there waiting for the Government to hand them news stories. Some information is fed through official channels, but it's an ultra-competitive marketplace -- with competition even among federal agencies and even intra-agency -- on the source side, if there is a story to be leaked, and you can gain personally or your agency can gain from leaking it, then it's often leaked. There is no such thing as monolithic thinking in the American psyche -- we thrive on feathering our own nests, and we can be counted upon to do just that. On the journalist side, we have the same ultra-competitiveness operating, with journalists and news organizations striving to beat the other side to the story, or often, to embarass other news organizations by revealing how the other organization "got it wrong". Even with consolidation and mega-media-giants, and maybe especially because, there are immense competitive pressures to out-do the other shops and "get to the real truth." Every J-School grad dreams of the day he will find his Deep Throat and expose another Watergate -- Abscam, Iran-Contra, Enron, et al. The American Experience is replete with infamous examples of journalists "taking down" the rich and powerful -- that's the core of who we are. That's how we know that the mainstream media account is the truth, and the conspiracy theories are without merit. Yes, there's room for doubt -- but that doubt operates every day to sharpen the story, not just when conspiracy theorists conjure it. Morton DevonshireYo
I completely agree with Morton on this. In the U.S., there are plenty of independent reporters that are not hampered by the corporate world of mass media, and they have every reason to try for their own personal gain, to find any and all evidence that would contradict the known evidence.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
ha ha. Just so long as none of this goes into the article. SkeenaR 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes , and those independent reporters can be found on the internet, in places like Alternet etc. The big media are owned by a very small group of people, and individual reporters working for those media won't get their stories published if they go against the stream of what the government 'likes'. If people (or a newspaper) publish stories the white house doesn't like, they lose their buddies or contacts in the White house or the other parts of the government, who won't give them their stories any more. This is not to say you can't publish it any more, just that the incentive is very strong not to do it.
About the widely suported doubts on the official story, please see this Times Herald story on public opinion split over 9/11 report. More than 40% of Americans believe the 9/11 report is a cover-up. I can guarantee you, this percentage is much more outside of the US. So to say there's no wide support, is an unfounded statement when considering public opinion. And an unfounded statement when looking at the true independents on the internet, those who are unbiased by the big bucks... Sacca 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Since 911Truth.org sponsored it, the questions may have been leading, but more importantly, it does not distinguish between those believing the report was a cover-up of negligence or political opportunism, and those believing the report was a cover-up of pre-meditated murder and treason. Peter Grey 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it mentions cover-up, so it definately is not a case of political opportunism, no cover-up is needed for that. Cover-up means there is something rotten. But thinking about it: 45 percent of Americans believe there is a conspiracy in the US government on 9-11. Sacca 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions cover-up - there is no indication whether the poll mentioned it or not. Peter Grey 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Zogby is reliable pollster. If you dispute that 42% say there is a cover-up, then ask yourself whether the ccover-up topic should be included if only 33% said there was a cover-up. Incidentally, some of the analysis in this section strays quite far from the topic and should probably be included in an area on theories about American journalism.

revert

# (cur) (last)  15:01, 4 July 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm conspiracy theory; rm promotional link)
# (cur) (last) 14:51, 4 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - see bin Laden article)

I've re-inserted the fact that the FBI does not accuse bin Laden of 911-involvement. Personally, I presume this can only be so if they too believe the confession-video could be a fake. They would have enough evidence, if he confessed, wouldn't they?

I am not, for the moment, reinserting doubts on the confession video's. Let's leave that for a later stage.

  • Please consult the Osama bin Laden page and its talk page for this debate, before editing.
  • please do not revert without due explanation on this talk page.

Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for this is because the links of Osama to the embassy bombings is conclusive, so in order to fully prosecute the hunt for Osama it's best to do so under the best potential for later prosecution. If ever captured alive, they can try him for the embassy bombings, which are prior to 9/11 and for which the evidence is conclusive, whereby, the evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks is less conclusive...but that doesn't mean that the FBI, INTERPOL and other agencies think Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so that needs to be understood.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As to responsibility and documentation, here is an image from and video of the Osama bin Laden confession tape that was found in Jalalabad.

Image from Osama bin Laden confession tape from Jalalabad
Image from Osama bin Laden confession tape from Jalalabad

Slipgrid

Depressing

It's actually quite depressing that Wikipedia is still not able to present a decent, unbiased, article about 9-11. The bias pervades the whole article, Dick Cheney might have written it himself! It's very proper that this article was taken out of the category of featured articles. Sacca 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is there not any template that can be applied to this article? Widely disputed article for example? Just so that the people who read it are aware?Sacca 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are such tags, and would be properly used here.{{neutrality}} Actually, it's time the tag went up for sure, because the neutrality is heavily disputed as one can see from reading this talk page. But I'm willing to bet if the tag was placed at the top of the article, it would be removed without explanation. SkeenaR 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, quite funny eh? Put up a tag and it disappears without any explanation. Surely some evil-doers are on the roll here!  ;-)
But off course, this is not what Wikipedia is for, it really needs this {neutrality} tag.Sacca 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Let's see what happens when I put it back.
The disputed neutrality tag is highly appropriate in consideration of (1) a recent Zogby poll that shows that 42% of Americans believe the government is covering up 9/11 (www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231) as well as (2) this very talk page. I issue strong support for the disputed neutrality tag. Thank you.
Evidence of a coverup is not evidence of involvement with the conspiracy. --Golbez 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Truth has nothing to do with how many people believe it. Most Americans do not have the expertise to judge for themselves what really happened. Also remember, the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.144.206 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 August 2006

Some proposal by Xiutwel

Dear Sacca,

  • why did you add
[[Image:Example.jpg]]
on 13:15, 8 July 2006 Sacca  ?
  • Actually, I did not add this image about example. Check it again, it must have been somebody else.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • History comparison indicates you inserted it, but this comparing is prone to bugs, so let's just forget about it. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree there are many disputed claims presented as facts. I propose the following solution:
    1. make a list of quotes from the article which do so
    2. try and reach consensus here on talk that these "facts" are widely disputed
    3. try and refrase the presenting of this information in the article in a neutral, encyclopic way.
  • yes, very good ideas.
  • Remember, that a majority of wikipedians takes the government story as either true or mostly true.
  • When I read the talkpage here I would say there's a lot who don't take the government story as true also.
  • From that perspective, it is only logical to dismiss any dispute as "conspiracy theory".
  • And therefore I do not agree with this statement at all. You are talking as if this talk-page does't even exist. take a look and read. this is all written by wikipedians...
  • For practicle purposes, I propose we leave all theorizing and accusations to the separate conspiracy article. However, the facts in this article should be above dispute (for so far as the dispute is founded on traceable evidence or logic).
  • Actually, if you're not going to accuse, you cannot include the '19 terrorists' or 'Al Queda' also. How can you write an article on this without putting in information about who did it?
Another funny thing is how can you be against theories and for logic? They go together. theories come from logical thinking. Logical thinking ends up in logical theories, so maybe what you mean is not to include unlogical theories, only logical ones?
  • I would support including the "disputed" tag only after we tried and failed solving things here in good cooperation. — Xiutwel (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The 'disputed' or 'neutrality' tag should be there now, because it is disputed now and it is not neutral now. If that changes in the future, it can be removed. The article as it currently is should currently be labaled as biased. Right now it's just misleading - not indicating the bias of a biased article.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Also there's actually no good cooperation here, if tags are removed without concern for the talkpage which indicated this page is HEAVILY in need of a TAG.
Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth", but instead is based on verifiable, reliable sources. As such, no 'disputed' tag is needed. If you think mainstream, reliable sources are in error, take it up with them. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean to say the 9-11 report is reliable? Many sources exist which indicate it is in fact not. You know, professors of physics and other sciences, former ministers, independent journalists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your TV! If those university professors think something is very flawed and biased about the 9-11 report and the mainstream US media, their opinions need to be reflected in the article.
The data in this article is very flawed because it is very biased. And there are some controllers here who keep it biased, it's very natural that those do not like to accept their biase-ness. So, even though the neutrality tag is removed very quickly everytime, this artcle badly needs it. Sacca 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you. Blogs and other sites which do not employ objective editorial oversight do not satisfy Wiki standards -- you can't add material from unverifiable and disreputable sources. Morton DevonshireYo

re: Some proposal by Xiutwel

  1. I was not as clear as I intended to be. I meant: seen from the standpoint that the White House is bona fide in this, it is logical to dismiss anything else as conspiracy theory. I was not intending to say, that this should be the wikipedia policy on this subject! I am hoping we can find a way to write together a page that satisfies wikipedia criteria according to all wikipedians.
  2. My feeling is that 70-90% of wikipedians choose to believe the government point of view, judging from the edits. Just a guess. That leaves a significant minority who think it is possible that the White House mounted a cover-up. As was said earlier:
    1. either they're covering up how they distorted the truth about 911 in order to go to war (but this would not be covering up about 911, so this is irrelevant concerning the poll mentioned above)
    2. or they're covering up that they were inadequate in preventing bin Laden from doing this
    3. or they're covering up they did this themselves and blamed it on bin Laden, or a combination
  3. verifiable sources: I would say we can go no further that establish whether some info, whether true or not, was presented in some widely recognized source, such as a newspaper, news program or document report. Absent these, a "conspiracy web page" must do but this is not very helpful since this will be disputed instantly.
  4. reputable sources: there aren't any. Period. Not about the guilt behind 911. Since the guilt is being denied by all involved, Bush and bin Laden alike. We should therefore restrain ourselves to summing up who said what and when. The sayings themselves are facts; what is said are not facts but possibilities.
  5. I think it is fair to put the tag up now, but it would be better to be the wiser party and first get going with specifying in detail which remarks in the article merit the tag. A general reference to this talk page as a whole is too easy, since theoretically the article might have been adapted according to discussions here on talk.
    • I just made archive 19 of this talk page, so it definitely will not suffice, just referring to the talk page as a whole. We need to be specific. Let us first reach consensus, that due to the opposing interests, government sources can not be seen as reputable, except for declaring what the government wants to declare.— Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would agree with that. Sacca 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Due to holiday I guess I'll be offline for a month or so. Hope the USA still exists when I return. Best wishes from Holland. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Proposal to include Molten Metal reference

I think it is clear to everyone involved that this page is highly disputed. That said, I would prefer if we can avoid resorting to adding Disputed Tags to the article - at least until we try harder to gain consensus over how NPOV and Verifiability apply in this case. As a specific example of a disputed fact is the continued exclusion of all reference to mainstream media accounts of Molten Metal sightings at Ground Zero on and after the attacks. For more detail on the Molten Metal discussion, see [[321]] For mainstream source material, see: [[322]]

This is a clear example of a Disputed Fact. It is well documented by multiple credible mainstream sources, but has been excluded from Wikipedia because it may not fit the official account of events. It is clearly a violation of NPOV to exclude this notable and verifiable fact: "Molten Metal was observed at the site of Ground Zero for days and weeks after the attacks.

Whether or not you agree that reference to Molten Metal should be included in the article. Does anyone wish to argue the fact that it isn't even disputed? Digiterata 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the primary article on this subject, that level of detail might not be appropriate, particularly since . It would also be necessary to explain why it's noteworthy, what it implies about conditions in the building, and, because many conspiracy theory argments include the observation, to point out that it actually contradicts the conspiracy theory scenario and supports the mainstream account (and I suppose the "official" account as well, whatever that is). Peter Grey 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. Molten metal is another subject which should be included in the article. If people want to know a lot of detail they can click on the link (Wikipedia uses links) at molten metal at WTC or something like it. Again the previous comment by Peter Grey may be creating more disputes and not solving any; shows just how much the 'disputed' tag is needed (it should have been there ages ago). Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
by the way Peter you didn't tell us yet why detail should not be incorporated into the article. There is a notable emptiness after the words partiularly since... it's almost funny :-) Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right Digiterata, it seems the reference to molten metal is disputed. (Just like the rest of the article and the whole article itself.) It seems Peter Grey has a very different idea about it (it's supportive of the official account - but he doesn't want to mention it strangely enough) than for example me (it's supportive of some of the alternative accounts). The fact that it's not in the article is one of the many instances of the biased-ness of the article, and the fact that you and me want it in but others not is an axample of one of many disputed issues in this article. greetings Sacca 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This main article needs to be concise, written in Wikipedia:Summary style. Details on the Collapse of the World Trade Center should go in that article. And, molten metal is something discussed in context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, so discussion of molten metal should go there. There are many other aspects of 9/11 that are covered in summary style in the main article. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean it is also discussed in the alternative theories. That's again very convenient, that anything which is discussed in the alternative theories doesn't have a place in the main article. That's the best way to keep this article biased, for sure! Congratulations, you've found it! Sacca 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the logical place for this kind of detail. Since the molten metal phenomena (there are two - something metallic falling from the building during the fire and hot and/or painted orange metal present at the site after the collapse) are real, documented events, but they are non-notable, not really implying anything beyond a) fire and b) collapse, which are not "disputed". Peter Grey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Molten metal appears when using explosive materials, not in a fire caused by a relatively short burst of large quantities of fuel. The molten metal is one very controversial subject because it points back to the method of controlled demolition which was used to take down the World Trade Center. The molten metal was not only seen dripping out of the building, but also encountered in large quantities in the basement, where there was no fire, but where large explosions are reported (verifiable) to have occurred. Together with the speed with which the WTC collapsed (free fall), it is one of the main indicators which betrays the true cause of the coming down of the WTC. But anyway not to worry, I've decided not to come back here since I don't want to waste any more time going over the same arguments time and time again with a limited group of people only aiming to keep certain data out. Keep it as biased as you want, but please notify me when there's some kind of vote because I'll happily join in that. bye bye for now... Sacca 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Molten metal does not imply any of these things; that is one of the leaps of faith the conspiracy theorists use, hoping that the average member of the public will not notice the gap in the argument. Peter Grey 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hijackers

It's interesting that nobody bothers to show any evidence for who the hijackers actualy were. It's even more interesting when you consider that the FBI admited that the hijackers were using assumed names and fake IDs. In fact, the 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes. So, who were they, really? If Wikipedia is going to say that these men were "Affiliated with Al-Quieda" then it damm well better back that up with some evidence. So far, all I see in this regard is a lot of alegations and not much evidence. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_175.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/U175pass.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are against the wikipedia policy and it is considered a form of vandalism. DO not post them here. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note -- you don't appear to be signed in as that user [323]. A bit laborious, I know, but please sign in so that we can all be sure who's who, eh? :) Luna Santin 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

To keep the lead section concise, I have removed the following:

I don't think it's necessary to add what was in parentheses. For example, simply saying the Pentagon is much more concise way of saying "headquarters of the US military". The part about "crime against humanity" is also too detailed for the intro section (and should be cited). -Aude (talk contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd claim of attack as crime against humanity is not even supported by the cite. Crimes against humanity are on the scale of genocide as defined by the UN and international law. Please, the attack was bad enough without this hysterical hyperbole. --Cberlet 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Devil's advocate: When you have well-established editors labeling the killing of 23 people or 1 as "crime against humanity", why does the killing of 3000 not count? Because the U.S. isn't the aggressor? --Mmx1 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's not be snide given the horror of the terrorist attack on 9/11. OK?
Why? Because the killing of 3,000 compared to the population of the United States does not approach the scale of genocide, either historically or according to the UN definition. Because there is no cite to a reputable published source making the claim. Because the only definition offered here is to an internal Wikipedia link. Because it is therefore uncited Original Research.--Cberlet 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Security council condemnation; repeatedly those that made comments declared the event as a crime against humanity, or similar along those lines. Kofi Annan "A terrorist attack on one country was an attack on humanity as a whole" [324] I concur that the event wasn't genocide, but I disagree that ir wasn't a crime against humanity. If others want to post that the U.S. has commited a crime against humainity on other articles, that is not my concern, so long as it is sourced. This article is about the events of 9/11.--MONGO 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let's roll"

It's not original research but common knowledge. Is there a dispute regarding The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? patsw 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

We now have an infobox... on terrorist attacks? Oy vey. Is this *really* needed? --Golbez 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is bad tasty.--Pokipsy76 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree they are so ugly and plus the official death toll is 2,986 not 2,976!! Litte Spike 2:37am EST, July 15th, 2006

Terrorism

'Terrorism' is a highly subjective term, and I do not think it has a place in a NPOV article unless it is in a quote attributed to a specific person. Therefore, could the presumed attackers be described as 'Islamic militants' instead?

I realise this is an emotional subject for many of you, but that is no reason to throw away objectivity. Damburger 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism has an objective meaning, and describes the actions of the "Islamic militants" quite clearly and unambiguously. It is a statement of fact, not a pejorative. Levi P. 04:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
From Merriam-Webster
  • terrorism
  • Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
  • Function: noun
  • the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Did these people systematically use terror especially as a means of coercion? Yes. Ergo the terrorist label.--Squiggyfm 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The United States systematically used terror as a means of coercion when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet that is not described as an act of terrorism. The fact is, every nation that produces a clear definition of terrorism applies it only to their enemies. It is definitely a POV term, but I won't change it before further discussion here. Damburger 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I would not call the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor terrorism either, as it was perpetrated by one country on another country during a time of world war. We are discussing the attacks of 9/11, during which "islamic militants", not affiliated with any army, hijacked commercial airliners, and crashed them into other civilian targets. There is a clear difference and it is not subtle.Levi P. 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Pentagon is not a civilian target. It is a military target through and through. The definition of terrorism according to the US Code, at least before 9-11, required that the target be civilian. As such, folks (such as myself) that continue to use that legal definition are correct in pointing out that the act of crashing a plane into the Pentagon was not, in any way, an act of terrorism. When people talk about the attacks, they are including the Pentagon, so we ought to refine the story to reflect that. Bugg42 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


You might want to examine the discussion archives where this has come up quite often. The editing consensus for this page before the issuance of the report of National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was that attacks were terrorist in nature and the perpetrators terrorists and since that report was issued it confirmed the judgement of the editors here. The specific objection you raise terrorism is a highly subjective term was thoroughly argued in the past. If you don't bring anything new to the discussion, it will remain as it is. patsw 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Commission you speak of is clearly a POV document. The phrase 'national commision' should tip you off to that. Furthermore, you seem to think my arguments have already been refuted but the article definition of terrorism shows that that is hardly the case for all wikipedians. Please don't let your emotions cloud your judgement.
Bear in mind I'm not asking for them to be called "matyrs" or anything - "Islamic militants" is a truly neutral description, as both sides agree its an accurate term form them (although neither side might think its the best term for them).
The definition that terrorism has to be specifically performed by a non-state organisation would define every revolutionary movement that used violence as terrorists (when combined with the dictionary definition provided above) yes I doubt the same Americans who think 'terrorist' is not a subjective description of the 9/11 hijackers would consider their own founding fathers to be terrorists. The British certainly did. Damburger 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No they didn't...they were "revolutionaries" to the Bristish, or Yanks or Rebels. Was throwing a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor a terrorist act? We have no proof the terrorists on 9/11 were "Islamic militants". They just happened to have been of the Muslim faith and it is less offesnive to Muslims if we call the actions of the terrorists terrorism than if we call them Islamic militants. I anything, islamofascists would be better since the people who orchestrated the attacks have taken and hijacked Islam for their own interpretations and perversions.--MONGO 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If the term terrorist wasn't applied to America revolutionaries, it was because it wasn't in use at the time. 'Rebel' at the time would've conveyed the same notion. As for 'Islamic militants' being an anti-Islam POV, the fact is that these hijackers apparantly conducted their attacks in the name of what they considered Islam.
'Islamofascists' is a term that I haven't really heard outside the US media, and some blogs. I think its more likely to be offensive to Islam than 'Islamic militants' Damburger 08:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, islamofascists it is then.--MONGO 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Islamofascists is POV, I made that clear. Damburger 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By any definition it would seem that hijacking a commercial airliner is prima facie evidence of terrorism. Levi P. 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't good enough justification for using such a POV term. Cuba domestic flights have been hijacked by people trying to escape the Island, do you consider them terrorists? Castro certainly does. Damburger 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist/terrorism is not a "POV term" when it is used in a factual, non-propagandistic way (i.e. not as an insult). Actually, trying to force the use of vague language and euphemism is a form of POV-pushing. Mirror Vax 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, you’re never going to get a totality of the population to agree on any term. Terrorist is the closest thing we have, as it is a noun for the people who commit acts of terror. What was 9/11? An act of terror. Terrorists is what every major media outlet calls the people who took part in 9/11. Why is that? Well, that’s because 9/11 was an act of terror. If we can’t call those guys terrorists, who can we call terrorists? Anyone? Should the word even exist?  ? The term is a valid term. It applies to these people. To Castro, those people leaving Cuba are terrorists. To us, they aren’t. The term is applied by the people who have been terrorized, not the other way around. Now, when Castro sets up a wiki, then we can debate what he calls people. Squiggyfm 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean 'until Castro sets up a wiki'? Are you suggesting that because wikipedia was set up by an American it should express a pro-American POV? Its only your opinion that 9/11 was an act of 'terror', because of how subjective a term 'terror' is. Regardless how widespread that opinion is in the US, it isn't a fact. Also, Mirror Vax, my suggestion of 'Islamic militant' isn't vague language or a euphemism, its an adjective and a noun which both sides agree can be applied to an individual. Don't try and shift the burden of proof, its intellectually dishonest. Damburger 08:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is a term which is used worldwide by respectable media outlets and encyclopedias. Your suggestion that only Americans consider 9-11 to be terrorism is false. You're just another eccentric POV-pusher, which this sort of article attracts, and there's no reason why anyone should give your opinion any weight. Mirror Vax 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If the term 'terrorism' is widely used by respectable media outlets, then by all means use it when discussing their opinions. I didn't suggest that only Americans consider 9/11 to be terrorism. *I* consider 9/11 to be terrorism, but that shouldn't be reflected in wikipedia. I figured seeing as nearly 5 years have passed it would be a good time to try and put the whole thing into perspective, the responses here indicate I might have been wrong. Damburger 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, 5 years later, and terrorists still did it! Look, it isn't the opinion of the media that terrorists did it...its America. And its not opinion, at least to the less-than-insane crowd. We might have to wait another 5 years until we can candy coat 9/11 to make ourselves feel better. Until then, its terrorists, not "freedom fighters" or "Islamofacists" or "men of various Middle-eastern descent". Squiggyfm 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If you consider 9-11 to be terrorism, then you are right, but only by accident, since it's clear that you have no idea what the word means. Mirror Vax 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wanna try the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion? Please tell me what terrorism really means. Squiggyfm 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out above: That definition includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Damburger 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That would out every act of war waged under the title of terrorism. Anywho, we're not discussing Hiroshima, or what Castro calls whoever (that was my point above). Squiggyfm 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
... but this isn't that page. If you'd like to make a case for that, go to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and argue that it should be included in the article. Oh, wait, it's already there, in the "Debate over bombings" section, under "Opposition". JDoorjam Talk 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because this isn't that discussion page, doesn't mean the subject can't be bought up here. The fact that the same people demanding the application of a POV term to 9/11 would not consider the nuking of a civilian population to acheive a political aim to be terrorism is very much relevant here. Squiggyfm: Even if it were the opinion of 'America' - which it isn't - then I would draw your attention to the 95% of humans living outside America. Damburger 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not just Americans use the term "terrorism" in reference to 9/11. So does Kofi Annan of the United Nations, as do the news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1. I'm still waiting on a acceptable word to substitute for terrorist or terrorism or terror.
2. In relation to Hiroshima, I can see your point, but you're leaving out the US was in a state of war against Japan. If Fat Man and/or Little Boy were used to achieve a political aim, it was to end the war. When the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is also a political figure, its hard to separate the two.
3. Audeverde pointed that it is not only America's view that it was terrorism. Thanks be unto Aude for doing what I was too lazy to do. Squiggyfm 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1. The acceptable phrase was 'islamic militants' for reasons I outlined above. 'Hijackers' might be better, or 'al-qaeda operatives'. These are all uncontenious factual descriptions that don't convey a POV.
2. If you don't consider identical acts commited by a state to be terorism, then a better example might be Luis Posada Carriles. He hijacked a jet and killed over 70 people, and is wanted in both Venezuela and Cuba. The US does consider him a terrorist.
3. The countries that squiggyfm mentioned are also western nations - and there the opinion isn't as uniform as you like to beleive. Damburger 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Damburger, Carriles is said to be involved in "numerous violent terrorist plots" in the first sentence of the article. That the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered by some to be terrorism is included in the article about the bombings. There are official definitions of "terrorism" and of "terrorist". 9/11 and those involved fit the respective definitions. JDoorjam Talk 07:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'd disagree with those uses of the word as well. I'm here because this is a more important article, and if such changes were made here I would move on to other articles. I've tried to start a more general discussion on the page definition of terrorism but so far nobody has joined it. Damburger 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that people have stopped answering, and I've blown the mentioned objections completely out of the water, can I take that to mean people don't mind the change? Damburger 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Messed Up Article Now

I noticed that some individuals destroyed this site!! The death toll is stated at 3,000, than 2,985, and than 2,976 all in the same article!! Whats up with this Wikipedia? This article is one of the most important ones on Wikipedia at this time and its filled with mis information and in reality the actual official death toll is 2,986!! - Litte Spike 3:46pm EST, July 15th, 2006

final death toll

the death toll on the article does not seem to reflect the downward revision that occured in October of 2003, [325] so I'm going to change it in the article. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

this seems to be a bit more complicated then I thought. It seems most likley that it was the WTC total was reduced, but I'm not sure that all the 40 in question were removed from the trade center total, and simply changeing the grand total would throw off the math. Can any one confirm that it was infact the WTC number that was reduced?
I don't know where the figure, 2986, that was there before was obtained from, but doubted its accuracy. I recently tried to source all the figures, and came up with 2976 fom the October 2003 CNN source. 2976 seems to be correct, also substantiated by reference #46. Now, it's possible that the count has been revised since 2003, but I don't have any such sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutra Point of View

WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW FOR THIS PAGE!!

I try to put in the qualifiers and I get a message that says that I'm a vandal.

This page is simply an extension of the mainstream media propaganda.

9/11 was an inside job.

You don't have to say it was but you can't have a fair encyclopedia entry on 9/11 if you don't state both viewpoints SIDE BY SIDE.

Further down the article does have some qualifiers. Good to see!

But they must be througout the article.

This is an example of showing both viewpoints: Some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls from the hijacked flights, though this is disputed as analysis of the voice indicate no panic, and the people couldn’t answer simple, straight questions. They reported that multiple hijackers were aboard each plane. A total of 19 were later identified by the FBI, four on United 93 and five each on the other three flights. Though conspiracy theorists point out that the Arlington county coroner said, “To this day I have not seen one drop of blood, not one.”124.168.86.15, 09:40, July 18, 2006

There already is a page for this. OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE! Did you not ready the numerous debates about this already? Squiggyfm 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Peter Grey 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain Peter, that was sorta ambiguous. Squiggyfm 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

...both viewpoints..., where one viewpoint is 9/11 was an inside job. (Not because it's ridiculous, but because there's no evidence.) Peter Grey 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's fun to see month after month new editors come here and say how they don't believe the mainstream account, that they tried to edit the article and that they were shut down by the same group of admin. It happened to me, before I gave up on this, it happened to this guy, and looking at the dozens of discussion archives it happened to countless amount of people, where many of them simply asked for a DISPUTED tag or 1 single intro line pointing out that there are people who disagree with the view point shown in this article, but not a single word was left, because this small group of admins is intent to keep this article biased the way it is. Elfguy 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge?

Why is this 9/11 series so incredibly huge?? It rivals WW2 articles in size. And is far larger than descriptions of many wars lasting many years and claiming incredible human victims (like Rwandan_Genocide, Darfur_conflict, Srebrenica_massacre, Algerian Civil War, Second Congo War, to name a few) Wouldnt one, or two, or three articles be quite enough for describing a single event? --Aryah 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In some casses 9/11 is a lot more than one event considering all of the years of planning.--Gecko 7 08:48, 25 July 2006
Well, for one, it's more recent and two, more people are familiar with it. b_cubed 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you people serious? An inside job? You throw out these theories without a single shred of credible proof. "The passengers on the plane didn't sound distressed"....what? How is that proof in any way? But hey, at least the Arlington coroner didn't see any blood...still more concrete proof of a conspiracy. What's next? Elvis planned the whole thing? All of the conspiracy theorists that post on this board need to lay off the crystal meth and see if that helps the paranoia issues at all.

(Personal attack removed)

(from above)

If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you. Blogs and other sites which do not employ objective editorial oversight do not satisfy Wiki standards -- you can't add material from unverifiable and disreputable sources. Morton DevonshireYo

(Personal attack removed)--ThaThinker 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The above has numerous personal attacks...see WP:NPA...please don't tell other editors they are lying.
  • (Personal attack removed) I got a 3 days ban for 3RR when I made damn sure never to do 3 reverts in one day (history proves it). Then when posting about it on the mailing list it simply got censored so it never went through. I've provided over a year of editing (anyone can check my stats) but this was the end of my contribution right there. Ya it sounds cliche and drama etc but Wikipedia needs some serious improvement to be something respectable and not the troll forum it currently is, where any random article can be kept locked down in a particular view point as long as a couple of admins are intent to keep it that way. Elfguy 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No they aren't. They are telling you not to cite blogs and non-verifiable stuff. WhisperToMe 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If what I wrote is a personal attack instead of the truth, let him allow some items that 9/11 skeptics would wish that are up to acceptable standards. The Abel Danger program is a matter of Congressional record, and Sibel Edmonds has been the subject of numerous news reports and a lengthy piece in Vanity Fair. She says she read documents describing the funding of 9/11, but she and the Congress have been gagged, and no grand jury or other Congressional inquiry has seen that any wrongdoers are brought to justice on account of her testimony. These topics are not allowed on this page, but we are not citing blogs. These allegations are as yet unproven, but so are doubts about the JFK assasination, or claims that an intellegent being called [God] created the Universe; but these two unproven ideas appear on their respective Wikipedia pages. Although they have not been confrimed, their articles include their claims as told from a neutral point of view. From a scientific point of view, allegations concerning 9/11 indeed verifiable and falsifiable. There are no grounds to exclude these topics, but although Wikipedia rules say minority opinions should be included in an article (especially a main one, IMHO), they are not. I don't think a few sentences to acknowledge the existence of a minority opinion is what those who drafted the rules on minority views had in mind.

I have not belittled Morton's intelligence, nor attacked him in any other way, except to say that when he claims he will allow qualified items, experience has shown that what he says is not the case. --ThaThinker 15:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear ThaThinker, I'm not going to get into any name-calling contest with you, so don't bother. You'll get along much better here if you try to follow Wikipedia policy -- please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. By the way, I'm just an editor here -- not an Admin, and don't want to be.Morton DevonshireYo
OK, fine. Then we should have no interference introducing a mention of Abel Danger and Sibel Edmonds into the text. Also, statements which are blatantly government supporting but are disputed should be able to be removed. I'm not trying to get on with anybody in this. I'm trying to help the truth get out, so that justice can be done, wherever the trail leads. Admins who remove the controvercial tag should be so righteous. Anybody else object? (Personal attack removed) If you support the ability to mention these relevant and fairly well-documented allegations, I will withdraw my accusation against you, Morton. The quote I started this section was requires that you will support such a move.
I can actually write fairly well. I've written almost two books of my own, and have contributed extensively to one rather contentious Wikipedia article already. I think I actually do pretty good, in the final draft, of wording rather controvercial material in a neutral manner. --ThaThinker 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
All that fits nicely in the article titled 9/11 conspiracy theories--MONGO 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That does nothing to keep this article from being POV. It is this article I am proposing fixing. Another strategy might be to REALLY remove statements objected to by 911 skeptics, and have separate articles on the government version and alternative theories. This would leave this article considerably smaller, with all contentious statements being removed. Again, the name Conspiracy Theories is POV, because the official version is one too; and it needs to be changed.
"If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you." Live up to those words! --ThaThinker 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm being censored for asking for a Wikipedia editor to live up to his statment. (Comments restored -- JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

One of the many things that was removed, that was not a personal attack, was that my remarks are directed toward fixing THIS article. Again, if we are to have an article 911 Conspiracy Theories, the official account belongs there too. To put only 911 skeptical information there is POV. THIS article is still badly POV. Also removed were some comments direected toward fixing this article, which were also not personal attacks.

Anybody notice the recent New Yorker story about how the CIA withheld information from an FBI agent Al-Queada before 9/11?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/v-pfriendly/story/432036p-364067c.html

In Research in Political Economy", vol. 23, the writer of this serious academic series also find serious questions about 9/11:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm

My request that Morton live up to his statement "If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you."

Among some of the things that were removed were a request that the case of Abel Danger, which is part of the Congressional record, be included, and Sibel Edmonds' case, which has been the subject of many news stories, including Vanity Fair, and who's credentials had been verified in a secret session of congress, be included. Also removed, were a list of four administrators who were blocking this sort of information that meets Wikipedia guidelines(Personal attack removed). His personal page also admits his non-neutral point of view that 9/11 skeptics are nuts. Fine, but that's an opinion, not NPOV. --ThaThinker 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What, exactly, is it that you'd like to add? I'd personally prefer we discuss the text of The New Yorker, rather than a tabloid's take on a different publication's take on an FBI agent's take on what went wrong leading up to 9/11. Your second source seems like material for 9/11 conspiracy theories. I recommend you stick to discussing information you feel should be added, rather than making things personal; attacking other editors isn't productive. JDoorjam Talk 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
A number of comments removed don't appear to be personal attacks. Gimme five minutes; I'm putting non-attacks back. JDoorjam Talk 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've restored a number of comments which are passionate, perhaps, but not necessarily personal attacks. I've removed direct mentions of names where it's not relevant to your point; I've bracketed them out thusly: {{RPA|"redacted text"}}. If I have missed any true personal attacks, they should be removed, of course. JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a personal dispute with you T. If we're going to debate, let's debate about whether an edit adheres or doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policy -- that's our yardstick around here for new edits. Having said that, if you want to include stuff that falls on the grey side of Wiki policy, add it to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, as we're consciously looser over there. Morton DevonshireYo

FAA Grounding

Should there be additional information in the section "Long-term effects", after the statement about the FAA grounding, about the lack of air traffic and contrails causing detectable climate changes in the U.S. For example, Wired News has an article on it, and more sources could easily be found. --Cipherswarm 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's really interesting, but is probably more appropriate in the airliner article than here. Climate change isn't a long-term effect of 9/11, it's a long-term effect of air travel. JDoorjam Talk 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The global dimming article exists. It may (or may not) be worth a passing link where the article mentions all the planes were grounded. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss reverts

As per the discussion about the term "terrorism" above which seemed to conclude with nobody objecting to it being a POV statement, I changed the article.

However, people are blindly reverting this without refering to the talk page. If I keep reverting it back to what was discussed here I'll be blocked under the 3RR. The people reverting it won't because there are large numbers of them.

What is the point of having a talk page if opinionated morons can overwhelm the article with pro-American POV insertions? Damburger 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Mmx1 has just reverted the changes I made once again, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THEM HERE. I discussed my edit at great length for DAYS before I made it, yet there are people reverting them without any discussion here at all.

I'd also like to point out, that just because one POV is very popular amongst the US media, it does not qualify as a fact. It is STILL JUST A POV

Damburger 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I made all the comments I needed in the edit summary. --Mmx1 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I tore your 'reasoning' apart here. What you are invoking is an Appeal to popularity fallacy. Of course, becaues of the 3RR I can't revert your POV, but that doesn't make you right. Damburger 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The article must separate the facts from interpretations, and must not blindly treat "official" interpretation as true.

Just one example:

19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda

Compare with: Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks: At least eight of the names on the FBI's list have been called into doubt.

And with al-Qaeda: According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. The extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.

So it isn't all that clear whether there really were exactly 19 people, who were they, and whether they were really "affiliated with al-Qaeda" in literal sense. There are many more cases where the article blindly accepts the "official" version. We cannot do that, as it threatens neutrality and quality of Wikipedia. Taw 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Its clear that NPOV can't exist in this article because of the vast numbers of highly opinionated Americans willing to ram the pro-American point of view down everybodies throats. Don't bother Taw. Damburger 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. We have been able to deal with many highly controversial subjects before. The article can stay NPOV-tagged until we're done. Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Beware of using wikipedia as a source.
By your standards, any non-deterministic human event is just an "interpretation". How do you know Columbus landed in the Americas? There's no empirical evidence you can examine; you can't interview the participants. But history is based on the interpretation of human actions and the predominant interpretation by not just journalists but academics is that there were 19 men affiliated with Al Qaeda. The lack of perfect information does not mean that we do not make any conclusions. We stick with the predominant one and note the objections where apropos, i.e. in the Organizers and Al Queda articles--Mmx1 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please notice that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is official policy that have been with us since the project started, and is universally accepted. The policy is explicitly about not sticking with the predominant view. Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The policy also states that undue weight should also not be given to minority opinions, hence why the doubters only a small part of the Organizers and Al Queda articles. It is not necessary to recreate the debate in a one-sentence mention in the Introduction when clearly there is a predominant position. --Mmx1 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV policy also explicitly addresses undue weight. We respect "undue weight" by providing a paragraph on conspiracy theories, along with a link to the subarticle. We also need to go with reliable sources. The term 'terrorism' is used extensively in describing 9/11. I'll repeat my comments from above here:

"Not just Americans use the term "terrorism" in reference to 9/11. So does Kofi Annan of the United Nations, as do the news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism.

And the link between the 19 hijackers and Al-Qaeda is well established, per reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well established by whom? The idea that the official story is incorrect may be a fringe theory in the US, but it certainly isn't elsewhere. A survey once found that about 20% of young Germans the US government was involved in 9/11. Damburger 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
20% still constitutes a fringe opinion. Hell, a higher percentage of Americans believe in creationism. More importantly, the academic and journalistic communities concur that the link is well-established. --Mmx1 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain how is that link relevant there ? It seems to be completely off-topic.
  • Could someone find and link the purported evidence that the 19 hijackers were "affiliated with al-Qaeda".
  • Please do not remove NPOV tag unilaterally. This is a highly disruptive behaviour. Taw 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:NPOV before reinserting the tag. You're giving undue weight to unreliable sources. 38.117.248.130 22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This issue is getting somewhat confused: The issue of whether wikipedia should use the phrase 'terrorist attack' has been swept under the carpet by the pro-US POV users, despite their not being able to form a cogent argument in favour of using it. I am going to remove 'terrorist' as it is POV language, unless someone can give me a good reason not to (I haven't seen one yet) Damburger 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, continue to dismiss editors as "pro-US" when it has been demonstrated that the term is in wide usage in the Non-American and non-western media. --Mmx1 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The extent to which the media uses it (which, by the way you are exaggerating a great deal) is irrelevant. It is still POV. I am going to continue to remove the pro-US bias you are inserting. You have yet to make a single valid argument in favour of using such a loaded term. Damburger 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia forbids the kind of POV-pushing that you are exercising here. Please review WP:NPOV. The use of the word terrorism to describe what happened is well-supported by reference to reputable sources, and your position is not. Morton DevonshireYo
By 'reputable sources' I take it that you mean 'mainstream western media'. I find it infuriating that I have to deal with the kind of people who think stating that the US was attacked on 9/11 is a POV statement just because it doesn't use the word 'terrorist'. My position doesn't need support - unless you are questioning that the US was attacked - as I am simply stating facts. You and your fellow pro-Americans are the ones introducing a term that is highly POV.

Obviously, numbers once again win out over logic and intelligence here thanks to the 3RR. This is one of the biggest weaknesses of wikipedia. Damburger 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be dissin' our melons, Boyo. Morton DevonshireYo
Here's Xinhua using the phrase "terrorist attacks" to describe 9/11. Here's the Hindustan Times doing the same. Here's the South African Globe and Mail referring to them as terror attacks. Here's the Lebanon Daily Star referring to 9/11 as "acts of terrorism" that, along with other terrorist attacks, have "smeared the image of Islam." The term is not solely the domain of "mainstream western media". JDoorjam Talk 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does that make is less POV? Not one bit. Saying there was an attack is a statement of fact. Saying there was a terrorist is a statement of opinion. Doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, and certainly not in a header. If those publications use the term, then the term can be used and is used in quotes from them. I'd also like to point out that the BBC link I was given an example of as saying it was a terrorist attack doesn't in fact say that. Probably because the BBC is a fairly unbiased source. Damburger 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides repeated assertion, what have you got? Find a reliable source that says the 19 hijackers were gallant freedom fighters, and we can include that, with quotes and plenty of context. Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"US Rocked By Terror Attacks". Or do you mean to quibble about the phrases "terror attacks" and "terrorist attacks"? --Mr. Billion 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying that September 11th is a terrorist attack is POV. Saying that it isn't is still POV. Either way, we're leaning in a direction of bias. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I'm *not* suggesting the article say it isn't a terrorist attack. The statement 'There was an attack on the US' doesnt preclude the attack being a terrorist attack, not does it state that it is. That is true NPOV. I don't need to find a source saying the 9/11 hijackers were 'gallant freedom fighters' because what I've inserted hasn't implied that at all. Considering one of the BBC links you used to 'refute' my argument actually refered to the attacks as simply 'attacks' without qualifying them as 'terrorist attacks' makes your case very weak indeed and I'm going to continue trying to get some NPOV in this article. Damburger 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying that both statements non-neutral is itself non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe there is even a discussion right now over whether or not September 11 was a terrorist attack. I hope to God you guys don't write history books. NOTHING will ever get done. Stanselmdoc 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It crops up from time to time. I don't know why. --Mr. Billion 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness. Stanselmdoc 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not really an issue of serious debate here, as attempts to insert that political point of view are quickly removed per Wikipedia policy. Morton DevonshireYo

At the very least, Damburger, wouldn't you agree that the sources cited above (Xinhua etc al.) address your concern of a "mainstream western media"-centric viewpoint? Also, what was the attack if not terrorism? Can't we reasonably conclude that Al-Queda (or whichever composite group the hijackers belonged to) pursues an agenda of "violence [...] to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately to bring about compliance w/ specific political, religious, [and] ideological goals," per Wikipedia's own definition of terrorism?

I guess we can discuss the second point, but I don't see know you can continue to maintain a position that only the "western media" refers to the attacks as terrorist. Icewolf34 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If those who desire not to call them terrorist attacks have their way on THIS article, then I feel we must all be obligated to remove any mention of terrorism within every other attack article here at wiki. After all, we can't be the judges of the reasons behind attacking and killing innocent people in order to generate fear and bring compliance with a specific goal. That's just wrong. Who KNOWS how many people in the World Trade Center could've been serial killers or child molesters? Maybe the terrori...oh I'm sorry...maybe the people who expressed their differing opinion through the unconventional and ingenious use of a large-scale demonstration...maybe THEY were doing the U.S. a favor. Have we ever stopped to consider that? I think that should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. It's extremely important that we represent accurately what those brave freedom-fighters were striving for. Stanselmdoc 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster terrorism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I borrowed that from the top of the talk page. Anyway, by definition, 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Did the militants (to avoid pissing certain people off) use terror? Yes. Did they use it as a means of coercion, or at least attempted coetcion? Yes. Therefore, it was an act of terrorism.

You talk about pro-American editors ramming a POV down your throat and in the article, saying they have no argument. I've yet to see any validated argument from you. Your also ramming your POV into the article when you keep trying to revert it.

Yet again, the same arugments that I tore apart earlier. Repeating them doesn't make them any more valid, and ignoring the fact I've got a watertight case doesn't constitute refuting me. Just because something has a dictionary definition doesn't mean its a not a POV term.
I'd also ask you all to refrain from leaving threats on my talk page. I'm aware you can't actually refute my arguments but you shouldn't resort to such petty measures.
Also, can someone explain to me how "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States" is a POV statement? It is merely a statement of fact. Wheres the POV? Answer: There is none.

Damburger 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by removing words you decrease the change of POV. In fact, a blank article is the surest guarentee of NPOV. The question is whether the additional information is valuable and balanced enough to merit inclusion. So far as I can tell, your argument about western-media bias has been thouroghly debunked (again, see Xinhua et al above). Your claim that "Saying there was a terrorist is a statement of opinion" is not at all valid, since there is in fact a working definition of terrorism (see Webster above, or Wikipedia definition), and the Sept 11th attacks fall firmly into those definitions. How can you claim that we're not addressing your arguments? Icewolf34 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't refute your arguments? Look at this entire section and tell me that with a straight face. Your "argument" has been refuted pretty much every time you open your mouth about it.

Honestly, I'm suprised this page hasn't been locked to editing... Someguy-021 05:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Someguy-021

Despite being threatened, blocked inappropriately, and having my cogent arguments plainly ignored by people hell bent of enforcing an American POV, I am not going to give this up. The fact remains, no matter how many news sources you cite, or dictionary definitions you come up with (which, by the way, don't imply NPOV. "Wanker" has a definition in the OED) 'terrorist' is still a POV term. Wikipedia states this elsewhere, why can't it be consistent with itself here? What you Americans never seem to get is that many opinions which are popular in the US are fringe opinions worldwide - after all, the US only represents about 5% of the population. Talk about undue weight. Damburger 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly...who gives a crap what you think? The event happened in the U.S. and your anti-American bias is so obvious you can cut it with a knive so shove off. I don't go into articles about events that happened in countries outside the U.S. and tell them they're biased. You're failure to see that the events of 9/11 were textbook level definitions of terrorism betray your obvious anti-American bias. Stop wasting our time with this radical nonsense.--MONGO 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Radical nonsense, eh? Even a large number of your own countrymen, hardly known for being objective on something, aren't fully convinced it was even an attack - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html - let alone a terrorist attack. Just because you haven't seen something on Fox News doesn't mean it is a radical. Damburger 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the survey question itself referred to them as "the 9/11 terrorist attacks," so 0% of the respondents said that they weren't "convinced it was even an attack," and, presupposing terrorism, the poll is moot for the discussion as to whether to include the term. What they said was that it's possible that some people in the Federal government either assisted or took no action because they wanted us to go to war in the Middle East. There were no questions about whether or not we were attacked, whether or not it was terrorism, etc. You also seem to imply that all Americans have the same opinion and that we speak with one voice, and that we all watch Fox News. These things are also untrue. You seem, finally, to simply dislike Americans in general; I hope that's not an accurate assessment. JDoorjam Talk 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If these people believed the federal government was involved, they probably wouldn't classify the attacks as terrorist attacks. But thats not the point. The point is that the POV you are your allies are pushing is by no means universal, even in your own country. I know you are all keen to paint me as an al qaeda symapthiser because I don't happen to follow the Bushist line, but the fact is I do think 9/11 was an act of terrorism - I am just detached enough from the event to realise that is just my opinion and plenty of other people think differently. Damburger 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was a terrorist attack is hard to dispute. Even for those who might believe that the gov't was complicit in the attacks, does not negate the fact that the attack falls under the definition of terrorist...it would just mean that the gov't factions supposedly involved were the terrorist in question.

Now whether Al-Quaida were the terrorists who committed the attack, now that is questionable, especially when 5-7 of the suspected are still alive. I can find the sources for this if they have not previously been posted.Mablespam 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest

That if there continue to be problems regarding discussion of 911, rather than discussion of the article, that interested parties do so at our discussion site, abovetopsecret.com, or more specifically our 911 Forum. I only mention this in hopes of helping the wikipedia to avoid unwanted discussions. We also have a wikipedia ( the Tinwiki) that is perhaps more appropriate for some of the controversial aspects of these topics Nygdan 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Should distinguish between

facts and POV, amke make a clear distinction, too.

We all know that the majority of people do not read the whole article, but rather they focus on the first lines to see what's all about, so let's concentrate on the first paragraphs, even though the rest of the article is still of major importance.


The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of 
a series of coordinated terrorist attacks
upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on 
Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

This may be considered right, especially when the word "terrorist" may identify a variety of people, even governments if necessary.

That morning, 19 men affiliated 
with al-Qaeda[8] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. 
Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot.

There is no actual evidence to support this claim. The official story has been under investigation by a numerous amount of indipendent journalists, writers and individuals. If Wikipedia is really open as it should, it has to include something like:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report [...], yet many doubts about the facts
presented are still unanswered (link to conspiracy theories/truth behind or list of
plausible explanations)

Just to be fair and square, you know. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, conspiracy theories need no mention in the intro. They are mentioned later in there article, with a link to the subarticle. As well, the vast majority of reliable sources concur with the "official" account, while there lacks reliable sources to the contrary. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Federico Pistono and like-minded conspiracists, let's make this perfectly clear for you: we won't be including anything from any "independent journalists, writers and individuals", unless, of course, they write for a media source which is subject to editorial oversight, and is notable (in other words, no blogs or 9/11 advocacy sites). Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS) prohibits us from including information from unreliable sources -- we are not a place of original publication, but an encyclopedia. Myself and many of the other editors here will resist all efforts you make to include such original research. Morton DevonshireYo
Dear Morton Devonshire, how about the 9/11 Truth Movement, which has quite an extensive article on Wikipedia?
Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be tangental, but the problem with this logic is that it can be argued that WMD were found in Iraq, since FOX news ( a so-called reputable news source) has stated as fact that WMD were found in Iraq. Furthermore, when independent media points out the fallacy in this, they should not garner credibility because they are on the fringe?

I do not consider myself a conspiracy nut, but rather an engineer, man of science and "doubting Thomas" who relies on scientific evidence, not merely popularity of purported fact in mainstream media. If anyone can show that 19 suspects of the attacks were al-quaida members and that 5-7 were not found alive, i would be rather intrigued to see the facts other than "official reports say so." Mablespam 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I found this link about the Pentagon, I think its worthy for inclusion [326] --Hamish (Talk) 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Howard Stern media coverage

Reaction From Morning Shows An unlikely source of news and comfort for New Yorkers and others across the country was Howard Stern, who kept listeners constantly updated on what was happening at the Trade Center and across New York City. Several listeners and frequent guest Crazy Cabbie called in to report what they were witnessing from various parts of the city. The Stern Show kept broadcasting well beyond its normal hours until mid-afternoon, in an attempt to provide a voice of reason in the aftermath.

I am disappointed to find this was deleted from the article on Apr 21, I had to do alot of searching to find out why, all the discussion was one-sided (archived Apr 2006). I can assert that it was more than a few listeners that day, likely more than usual due to the fact many radio and television transmitters were knocked out in the attacks, leaving fewer sources of information. In addition, the west coast markets heard the broadcast live, whereas normally the show is delayed. People in dozens of cities around the country listened to observers in New York who were mere blocks away from the events of 9/11. Maybe it cannot be added back entirely, perhaps re-written or just linked somewhere. This broadcast was part of the history of that day, surely someone out there agrees. Barrel-rider 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream propaganda

This Wikipedia entry is a blot on the fair name of Wikipedia.

Countless eminent scholars have pointed out NUMEROUS holes in the official story -- the use of thermate to damage the main structural columns of WTC 1 & 2, the removal of the evidence from the crime scene, the conflicting defense exercises on 9/11, the fact that WTC 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft but collapsed in its own footprint, commercial airliners CAN'T be flown at those speeds and maneovers because of their force feed-back systems, Hani Hanjour could barely fly a Cessna let alone a sophisticated airliner, the Pentagon showed virtually no signs of airliner wreckage, and on and on ad nauseum.

Retired US generals have come out in support of 9/11 conspiracy, Hollywood actors, schoolteachers, university professors, rock singers (Ministry, Slipknot, etc), journalists (yes, even the ones that don't submit 9/11 articles because their employers are PAID not to run the stuff (email me and I'll tell you some names)), school kids, tradesmen, etc, etc.

How many more people will it take before this section of Wikipedia at least QUALIFIES its statements to reflect the possibility that 4 inept patsies may not have pulled 9/11 but a cabal of US government officials including Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Larry Silverstein, and a host of others pulled 9/11 to win the hearts and minds of the population to motivate the to go to war in Afgahnistan and Iraq (and perhaps Iran, etc).

Ministry have released a 9/11 conspiracy song "Lies, Lies, Lies"

"We're on a mission to never forget 3,000 people that I've never met We want some answers but all that we get Is some kinda shit about a terrorist threat."

Until this Wikipedia entry reflects reality, it will remain a part of the conspiracy that 9/11 was.

"A time when silence is betrayal" Martin Luther King


  • A lot of people in these discussion pages agree, or at the very least have unanswered questions, but arguing it here is useless. There's page after page of achived comments from new editors that come here, try to change the article, and are reverted back every single time by the cliche that hangs here and make sure not even a 'disputed' tag, or a single word, gets in that would go against the official story. Basically you're wasting your time and I suggest instead you do what I do and spend that time trying to educate people to go to the real, multiple sources to get their information, and stay clear of bias online web pages like wikipedia. Here's some starts:

1. The real history of Al-Qaeda from the BBC [327] 2. In-depth analysis of the 9/11 commission [328] 3. Just some of the many unanswered questions that you wont find on Wikipedia, but the LA Times published [329] 4.A poll shows a third of Americans that the US helped in the 9/11 bombings, FOX News [330]

Research for yourself. Wikipedia articles only show one side of any story. Elfguy 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to take a look at [331] and the link to the larger sub-article there. Feel free to add NPOV facts/well-documented, notable theories to either section. (Preferably to the subpage, since this page is already v. long.) Also, out of personal curiousity, given the "countless eminent scholars" and "retired US generals" espousing these theories, why in the world do you bother to note the opinions of "Hollywood actors [...] rock singers, [and] schoolkids"? Surely a quote from some scholar would serve your viewpoint here better than the lyrics of some rock group? Icewolf34 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes. The eminent opinions of schoolkids. Excuse me while I add to women that "girls have cooties" and Santa Claus and tooth fairy the significant alternative POV that they are real.--Mmx1 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Scholars? What eminent scholars do you refer to? Name one. Morton devonshire 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Elfguy, you got the "on and on ad nauseum" part right.Levi P. 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's one - Noam Chomsky. Eminent enough for you?

Response in the arab world

On September 11, 2001 I remember watching on TV pictures taken in the middle east of people dancing and celebrating in the streets. I see no mention of those scenes in the "September 11, 2001 series of articles". Why? On some web forums I have heard these reports were false, but even if it is true that they were false it should be mentioned anyway since those pictures had a significant influence on the western public. Comments? Mieciu K 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on it: Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It covers what you're asking about, I believe. Richard G. Shewmaker 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add this site

It is a removed site from the 9/11 conspiracy theories site. I went ahead and WP:BB and added the site. This is the first page I have seen with such lame ass restrictions about posting sites. Travb (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Must all opinions be included?? Nope!

Great article. This is about as balanced as it can be without drifting over into the absurd by including every conspiracy theory and extreme bias known to man. To insist that there must be absolute, unassailable proof before printing anything about 9/11 is to expect the impossible. To insist that every POV be represented (from what I've read on this discussion board) for the article to be considered impartial is just plain crazy. The perpetrators' and their sympathizers' points of view simply are not valid. For example, I've yet to read a history book that says that Adolf Hitler allegedly was responsible for the Holocaust or that Germany allegedly invaded Poland in 1939. I don't recall seeing "equal time" being given to Nazi POVs on any matter. There's a good reason for this.Jlujan69 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

i think a terrorist attack infobox sghould be added to the article

It's hideous, mister unsigned person. --Golbez 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternate theory that MUST BE INCLUDED in the MAIN ARTICLE

This theory is CLEARLY NOTABLE as it has gotten major media attention. It completely debunks the "official" theory (who are you going to trust? Federal "career scientists" and so-called "professional structural engineers" or a neutral party like Oliver Stone?) and if it's not included in the article I may do something totally drastic and irrational. Cheers,JDoorjam Talk 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make my day. Morton devonshire 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong death toll

I notice the death toll was again changed to the wrong one. Its not 2,976! Its 2,996 and this toll does not include the terrorists! Also, the real firgure is 2,948 confirmed dead, 24 reported dead and 24 reported missing, which comes to a toll of 2,996 victims. The particular website I used is cited by the White House and the IRS, which can be found on the home page of this website. The home page for this website is [332] and the web page were it states the correct death toll of the victims is [333].

It does not cite its sources, so I fail to see why it is more reputable than the existing CNN and report sources on its face. Can you show me where the White House and IRS cite this website? --Golbez 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The White House website cites the source on this link [334]. They have not updated this website, but the source is September 11 Victims, which is the particular website that I used for the firgure of 2,996 victims. Also, I don't think CNN is a good source at all, because the Tsunami death toll on their site is still 162,000, which is wrong.

CNN was citing official New York City figures [335]. Though, this figure was as of 2003. The same figure, 2976, was cited in 2004 by CBS [336] regarding the 9/11 compensation fund, and by the U.S. Department of Justice. [337] If the figure has changed since then, we need sources detailing that. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that was 3 and 2 years ago. The particular website that I used to get the firgure of 2,996 is updated daily and it is correct. The correct death toll is 2,948 confirmed dead, 24 reported dead and 24 reported missing, which comes to a total of 2,996 victims [338]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.31.126 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 August 2006

The figure, 2976, is also corroborated by the official Flight 93 National Memorial brochure by the National Park Service. [339] This brochure was published in 2002, so includes the 40 fradulent cases that were subtracted in October 2003. Other than that, their figures match. For anything more recent, we need some other source that explains the difference between the 2004 figure and the one you cite. Why the differences? I would be interested to know and clear up any confusion. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I as well would like to clear up the confusion and determine the correct death toll. Also, it states on the homepage of this website that it was used as a source in the final 9/11 commission report [340].

I'll look more into this tonight. I'm not 100% sure on the figures for American Airlines Flight 11 - I've seen both 87 and 88 reported. And for United Airlines Flight 175, I mostly see 59 reported, but also have seen 60 used as the figure. Either way, I'm fairly confident that the numbers should add up to 2,796 (the official number reported). But, if you find any sources indicating any official change to the number since 2004, they would be important to have here. I'm guessing that the difference between the 2004 official count and september11victims.com may have to do with the "reported dead" and "reported missing". Maybe some of those turned out to be fraudlent? I can try and come up with specific names that account for the differences, between the sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
PS, I suggest you create an account, to make it easier for people to leave messages on your talk page and work with you. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 9/11 Commission Report reference to september11victims.com is among many different sources (also including CNN and others) they used. This was in reference to determining how many victims worked at or above the impact zone in the WTC, an investigation done by NIST. [341] Here's the footnote (#200, chapter 9) from the 9/11 Commission Report:

"For the estimate, see NIST report, "WTC Investigation Progress," June 22-23, 2004. For the updated death certificate information, see New York City report, "WTC Victim List," June 21, 2004. The analysis in this paragraph is based upon the following sources: CNN, "September 11: A Memorial," updated 2004 (online at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html); company contacts, June 29, 2004 (online at http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/contacts/companies_list.asp?letter=1); CNN, WTC tenants, 2001 (online at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html); September 11 personal tributes, June 19, 2004 (online at http://www.legacy.com/LegacyTribute/Sept11.asp); September 11 personal profiles, Oct. 11, 2003 (online at http://www.september11victims.com/september11Victims); New York Times, Portraits: 9/11/01: The Collected "Portraits of Grief" (Times Books, 2002)."

And the 9/11 Commission itself never provided an official total figure. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool and if we can't firgure it out soon, its no big problem because on September 11 coming up this year many articles will give the final death toll so we can get it from them.

So did you determine if 2,976 or 2,996 is the correct number?

Turns out, going through a list of nearly 3,000 and crosschecking sources isn't something one can do in an evening. I'll try and finish up with it this weekend, or possibly early next week, and provide results somewhere in my userspace. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change (video)

I do think that this video is well referenced. That is why others can write line by line debunks of the arguments this video makes (like [342]). If I want to check statements from the movie, all I need to do is google sources quoted, and read the rest of the referenced story. Although I do agree it should be in the 911 conspiracy article. Lakinekaki 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It cited Wikipedia and Metafilter. If that doesn't complete negate any positive referencing it has, nothing does. And if there are line-by-line debunks, then is it really relevant? --Golbez 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
WP is not about publishing only truth, but all cited information, be it true or false. Every reader will judge the arguments for him/herself.Lakinekaki 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There is also WP:NPOV; placing undue weight on minority views, and WP:RS, the consideration of reliable sources. What good is a source if it cites wiki? That's a bit circular, no? --Mmx1 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Loose Change is an adolescent, moronic bunch of junk science developed by POV pushers of nonsense. Having it in the article violates numerous policies and guidelines.--MONGO 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Death toll

Hello there I just watch the movie "World Trade Center" and at the end it said 2,749 people were killed in the attack at the wtc. So therefore, I remember that they lowed it further from 2,752 to 2,749. So the new death toll when added up is 2,973 confirmed dead with 24 reported missing. All together its 2,997 victims and with the terrorists its 3,016[343][344].

Hello again I just updated the article with the correct death toll with 2,973 confirmed dead and with another 24 that remain listed as missing.

The death toll that CNN has at 2,973 is calculated like this. 2,749 died at the WTC. 125 died at the Pentagon. 59 died on flight 77. 40 died on flight 93. So, therefore the total dead comes to be 2,973 [345]. However, September 11 Victims is also a good source as well, because if you use their firgures it still adds up to 2,973. They have 2,948 listed as confirmed dead, but lets add one for flight 11 to make it 88 like CNN did. So the total confirmed dead will stand at 2,949 according to this site [346]. They also have another 24 people reported as dead [347]. Also, another 24 remain listed as missing [348]. So, the total according to September 11 Victims is 2,973 killed with another 24 that remain listed as missing to this day[349].


This is absolutely macabre. The point isn't determining exactly how many people died! This is exactly what Herbert called "the ferocious quibble over a comma."

Besides, with loss of life on this magnitude, exact casualty figures all but impossible. That's why the military uses the classification of "Missing."

In WW1, on the first day of the Somme offense (1 SEP 1916), 20,000 British soldiers were killed in 20 minutes. 20,000 were Missing. In fact, many of them were KIA. They were hit by German shells and their bodies completely disintegrated. Nothing was left to identify.

The idea of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (a British idea) came out of this reality. Such pettifogging exactitude marries horror with pedantry. Do you think they sit around at Yad Vashem trying to get the decimal points right?

Let us honor all the murdered, known and unknown.

PainMan 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this isn't a war its a terrorist attack in New York City so everyone that is confirmed and listed as missing are the victims of 9/11 and in total the death toll is 2,997 victims.


I'm afraid, Unsigned Person, that you miss the point. It was an act of war. Terrorism is what military analysts and historians call Asymmetrical Warfare. We used it against the British during the Revolution (let no one go brain dead and assume I'm labelling the Revolutionaries, for whom my great-great-great-great grandfather made guns, were terrorists). The Afghans against the Soviets. More pertinently, the tactics the IRA used against the British.

Never in history have acts of war been confined solely to sovereign states. The tens of thousands of terrorists we've killed, the 3 out of 4 Al-Qaeda leaders captured or killed, in the years since the attack certainly believed they were waging "holy" war against freedom, justice and religious toleration. The last, of course, being the thing they hate the most.

It's important for the government to ascertain the exact death toll for insurance companies, distrubting aid, distributions from the settlement fund, prevention of fraud (of which there has been a disgustingly large amount), etc. For history, however, it's not necessary. Whether it's 2997, 2998 or 3001 dead is irrelevent. It's like arguing over exactly how many Jews the Hitlerites killed during the Shoah--petty, pedantic and offensive.

PainMan 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. What are you trying to do? Make the death toll greater than it really is? Anyways, 9/11 might have been an "act of war", but it is still a terrorist attack. In the end, 3,016 people died in the attacks and 2,997 of them were victims. Also, when it comes to the attacks of 9/11 the exact numbers are known. So in this case it is important to get the numbers correct and I can state that we have.

Reference size

Too many articles to check out. I found the comment do not reduce font sizes, the Wiki style sheets control presentation. That must be done manually by adding a DIV with the class references-small. Does anyone object this modification? It is custom to reduce the size of references when there are many. -- ReyBrujo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory page

Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.

After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.

This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys! Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."

Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.

PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Garbage? This entire page is Garbage. Tha FACTS do not support the 9/11 Commisions "findings" they never have. Loose Chnage is as close to tha facts as anyone will EVER get. The "findings" of the 9/11 Commission have been continually and successfully disputed. People like you who continue to blind themslevs to the truth so that you can shirk your REAL patriotic responsibilities make it easier for those really resposnible to perpetuate a lie. This article is not Neutral.--68.186.142.187 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, you think loose change is real, how cute --Golbez 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Uh, the dude without the courage to sign his-/herself before attacking me should bother to actually read comments before attacking them. You might save yourself some embarassment. I made no comment on the 9/11 Commission Report whatsoever. In fact, I agree that 9/11 Commission was a joke. For example, it makes no mention of the proven involvement of Saddam Hussein in the preparation for the attacks. PainMan 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with any of theories I read during these years about the date chosen by al-Qaeda. As European I think this is due to the youth of the U.S.A. and its lack of history.

At first we must ask ourselves what Islam says, why al-Qaeda was born, what al-Qaeda wants and who are the Heads.

The main principle of the Muslim Religion is in few words: "Allah is one and Mohammed is his Profhet".

The main figure in the Islam is the Caliph. The first Caliph was Adam.

The Islam overruns the conception of Indipendent States, such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Lybanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Turkey.

al-Qaeda as radical fundamentalist Islamic group, whose name means "the base" in English", has the main purpose to establish the pure application of the Muslim Religion just under one Guide, the Caliph, and to restore the Caliphate over the whole Islamic World.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are founders and senior members of al-Qaeda's shura council, and come from prominent high class families.

"We are in a new phase of a very old war" says - at the beginning of an Islamic website - the title of a townscape painted by Italian painter Bernardo Bellotto (Venice 1721-1780 Warsaw), called Canaletto, between 1759/1761 in Vienna in a series of 13 prospects and reproducing the exact topographical urban panorama from the Belvedere (palace) .

This perspective construction unfolds between the gardens of both the Schwarzenberg Palace and the Belvedere itself in the foreground to a row of stately Baroque palaces and churches in the middle focal plane of the painting. These buildings are evidence of the active construction "boom" in Vienna after the second Turkish siege in 1683.

But why the Belvedere (palace)?

The Belvedere (palace) is a baroque complex built by Prince Eugene of Savoy in the 3rd district of Vienna, south-east of the city center.

After buying the plot of land in 1697, Prince Eugene had a large park created. The Schloss Belvedere began as a suburban entertainment villa: in 1714 work began to erect what is now called the Lower Belvedere, not as a palace but as a garden villa, with an orangerie and paintings gallery, with suitable living quarters. The architect was Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt, one of the most important architects of the Austrian Baroque, who produced in the complex of buildings his masterwork.

And who was Prince Eugene of Savoy?

Prince Eugene of Savoy was one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the Habsburg Empire and took part in the first large-scale battle of the Habsburg-Ottoman Wars, the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

The Battle of Vienna took place on September 11, 1683.

After a mass in a Chapel in Kahlenberg at the gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683, in the morning, Jan III Sobieski King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and commander in Chief of the Christian Army of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, moved against the Muslim Armies of the Sultan Mehmed IV, commanded by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, and defeated. The battle finished on September 12, 1683, about at 17 p.m.

The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the Central European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Over the sixteen years following the battle, the Habsburgs of Austria, and their allies gradually occupied and dominated southern Hungary and Transylvania, which had been largely cleared by the Turkish forces.

The date of September 11, 2001 attacks chosen by al-Qaeda could mean the beginning and the revenge of a "very old War" against the Infidels.

    If all this was known why didn't anyone warn us about the date September 11th?
Irrelevant. Unless you're joking, have a look at the no original research Wikipedia policy. 82.181.61.48 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual Responses

Hi,

I'm trying to find responses to 9/11 not from the media or politicians but from historians, political scientists, philsophers, sociologists etc. It seems to be an area that would be useful to include in the article. Does someone know of any such responses?

--Lucaas

lol. I think your a bit of head of yourself. I think your answer lies in the 26th Century.

For historians, perhaps not the other groups or professors in general. But, if you we must wait till 2500, such responses being absent, keep your patience.Lucaas 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth

Everyone, from the Queen of England to the hounds of hell, knows truth behind 9/11. So in the name of decency and understanding of darkness that it involved in this whole monstrosity remove any mention of responsibilities and/or motives from article. These are false facts, and they simply cannot stand in encyclopedia. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that each & every cause for war in Iraq is false. Please, act immediately! This page will be one of the focal points in times of anniversary, and Wikipedia must not stand as a lie. I sincerely hope that you all understand that this is not a question of debate; it is question of humanity and liberty… Act with haste, & God speed…


Mainstream

Yes baby, we are going mainstream! --Striver 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus one

This mother wants you to not mention her daughter in this context. Are we legaly bound to respect that? --Striver 01:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No were not and we will not. I bet if her daughter was alive today she would smack her mother out for saying that!

LOL

Why is this in the article lol:

"The attacks were widely referred to as terrorism in most of the world, by the majority of people, no matter their race, nationality or faith."

Intro

"The attacks were widely referred to as terrorism in most of the world, by the majority of people, no matter their race, nationality or faith.". Who's Line is it anyway? --Haham hanuka 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism?

I'm not sure that these attacks should be considered terrorosm. After all, 214,000+ people died when Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, but the U.S. Government still denies the fact that it was terrorism, while dwelling on 9/11 airplane bombings, where less than 3,000 people died.

OK, I know that this WAS terrorism, but it doesn't compare to things like the Armenian Genocide, where 1.5 million people were brutally, sadistically killed (like setting women's hair on fire, and making their children clap & laugh), while others were tortured, and forced to walk through the desert, so hugry, that they ate droppings of camels. The worst part is that USA helps cover this up, and even fired a U.S. Ambassador for reffering to the genocide as a 'genocide'.

There have been many other tragedies - like the Indian Ocean Earthquake, which added to 275,000+ deaths, and 229,866 lost people - in non-U.S. countries, but they just don't pay too much attention.

Americans are self-centered, and (they will deny this) they don't care about deaths in any other country, because, sub-conciously or conciously, they beleive they are superior, becuase the media tells them that, and they think that because they are rich, they themselves are worth more.

"Why is this 9/11 series so incredibly huge?? It rivals WW2 articles in size. And is far larger than descriptions of many wars lasting many years and claiming incredible human victims (like Rwandan_Genocide, Darfur_conflict, Srebrenica_massacre, Algerian Civil War, Second Congo War, to name a few) Wouldnt one, or two, or three articles be quite enough for describing a single event?" --Aryah 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a very smart person! Someone who understands what I'm talking about!


Anyway, yeah, it's bad that those people died, but here's the secret: BUSH, THE U.S. GOV'T, CIA, ETC. ALL KNEW THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN!....But they don't want YOU to know.


Let's assume good faith rather than start pointing fingers. September 11 was a modern event which captured international attention and moreover, as it was in a western nation, was well documented, especially on the internet. How much information is available on the 2004 tsunami? A magnitude less. Historical events especially so because most of the documentation is available in paper and is less accessible to the typical wiki editor than internet sources. Moreover, add the amount of conspiracy theorists trying to rewrite the article constantly and that adds to a heavy level of activity, drawing editors to this page to refute and rebuke such additions. If there were active Earthquake conspiracy theorists proclaiming it to be the result of the Halliburton Earthquake Machine (TM), you'd bet there'd be a lot of activity on those pages, too.--Mmx1 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FREEDOM

Enough of all that subliminal fodder don't hide it like some villains… say it straight! Truth with PEACE & LOVE!

Please make sense. --Golbez 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Oh, pardon me, but it's all around:

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/08/21/254.html So It would be nice to see it here… Do you know that FBI actually confirmed (better word, admitted) that Osama didn’t have anything, nothing, nada… to do with 911 (google it)? Just check the news… and correct those errors… that is to whoever is in charge there?

Ah this claim appears from time to time. The problem is it simply isn't true. The FBI has made no such statement.Geni 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've just jumped in from another forum, do as you wish… it will be over soon… http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
hmm which forum would that be? Would you get a JREF ninja reference?Geni 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you should be on forum, lots of genies there already:))) and you can confirm facts stated in that article at your state department – if any… Say have you seen some new jokes about bush? Here have one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciEGEDgE1k4&mode=related&search


You can also ask google for terms failure (or moron)… se what comes up! High HO!

Michael Moore?Squiggyfm 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting close to link spam. We don't care what links say, if you want to add something then add it. But stop spamming the talk page with stuff people aren't responding to. --Golbez 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are shocked:)… Apologies, as an old user I should have known better… just a bit exited, can't blame… but I like that court link the most… it will be available tomorrow… nations wide… I won't add anything to the article, however I would remove those "questionable" lyrics, and stick to the facts… whatever, it's done, take care…

Whoever put the tag on top of the page about not discussing conspiracys or gvt inepitude, thank you. We don't need any crap like that in a factual article.

But ignore me. Back to the discussion. 69.148.78.247 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What's there to discuss… it's on CNN as we speak… front page… you can hardly miss it… factual article? LOL…

Boilerplate

If the discussion is innapropriate, than say so, if a block is in order, than block. This is supposed to be an article about the Sept 11 attacks, and this is a discussion page. Wikipedia does not censor.(no discussion of government ineptitude even?) Please do not replace that tag. It will be removed. SkeenaR 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page. This is for discussing the "article". Not the subject. Talking about content additions is okay. Not debating about which plane was not hijacked, or who funded Haliburton. This is not a message board. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The point of view of the article is worth discussion. If I understand this correctly, the goal of the encyclopedia is to be a reference of fact, and though you might like us to discuss the point of view and integrity of this article at another forum, to do so is not reasonable.Slipgrid
if you like more delicate things, I find this letter to be another master piece… http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html

and this http://www.courttv.com/home_primetime/index.html? This is just prime time… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelight (talk • contribs)

Again, this just further proved my thoughts. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh, who needs a boilerplate when you've got a guard dog. : ) Morton devonshire 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah look, block him then, or if you can't do it than call in an admin. It's been done before, and obviously a tag like that doesn't help with the hard cases, does it? We don't need to scare people off from discussing the things involved in the events that may or may not be included in the article with such a warning. SkeenaR 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about scaring people. If anything, it will ward off people only looking to throw a bunch of link spam. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see why some might not like the boilerplate, but truthfully, it should be clear to all that our efforts here are to try and improve the article...I have no problem with the boilerplate.--MONGO 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


It's completely innapropriate. Many new users would be afraid to post anything for fear of being bitten, and the Naziesque implication that mention of ineptitude on the part of the government won't be tolerated isn't so cool either, is it? SkeenaR 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, why don't you warn him and then carry on from there? The boilerplate won't fix this problem, but an admin can sure make a difference in these situations. that's why you have those buttons. SkeenaR 06:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

He's been warned. Let's see if he responds appropriately. I suppose we should leave off the boilerplate for now, especially since we already have a troll warning at top.--MONGO 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that boilerplate was a real blight on the page and that no one would want this place to reflect that kind of attitude. No offense PCH, we all get pissed off. SkeenaR 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who initially posted here. I probably didn't make it clear, but my meaning was that there should be a section on theories and conspiracies regarding the attacks, as currently, this article does not show any other ideas shared by people who do not believe the "official" report. Honestly, it's difficult to decide what to put on an article without discussing the article itself. Sort of like trying to make a guide book for computer software without knowing what the software does. You've just closed off any chance of extending and improving the article, which is the whole point of this website isn't it? I admit my first post was a bit vague on what was intended, but it doesn't help if you don't give me a chance to edit it and refine it to the quality you oh so desperately desire. 213.120.158.229 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you check out the article at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 08:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are ways to add information and improve the article without creating a zoo-like atmosphere. Find the correct spaces in the article to add appropriate verifiable info. SkeenaR 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists

Is up for review at [350]. Thought all of you would want to know. Morton devonshire 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Credible Academic Sources

For a credible academic source, see the works of the eminent Professor Noam Chomsky over the last decade.

I must also add that i have viewed this discussion and i have come to the conclusion that the article and this discussion are, as one contributor has pointed out, heavily influenced by U.S. opinion and not by verifiale facts. Unfortunately, I have also come to the conclusion that it is useless attempting to rectify this article as it will bounce off minds that are incapable of processing critical ideas. However, it would be unfair to pejoratise individuals who are utterley and hopelessly repressed by the illusion created by the very anti-thesis of that which they believe they stand for. It is often true that the slave protects the interests of his master over his own freedom.

The events of that day were despicable and cannot be condoned by anyone, but this should add impetus to the drive for a free and true representation of facts that have been both scientifically and critically assessed.

I ask only that you read, think and criticise ALWAYS. Look to your own integrity and not a websites guidelines - rules are created by men and women just like you.

TDM-UK August 2006

What a stirring speech. Was that just a rhetorical exercise or do you have some specific addition/subtraction that you think would improve the article? Levi P. 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Crucial & credible academic (re)source can be found here:

http://www2.nea.org/he/heta05/images/2005pg119.pdf#search=%22911%20academics%22 Lovelight 14:21 CET


Thank you, Levi, for the compliment. I apologise for any excessive rhetoric; i obviously spend far too much time with politicians.

I do indeed have numerous additions and subtractions that i hope will improve and neutralise this article. However, in order to present a case that is academically sound i am in the process of systematically analysing the language in the article according to two established methods within contemporary Linguistics. For now, I will state those two methods so that readers can assess their validity. The first is Stylistics, also known as Critical Linguistics, and the second is Critical Discourse Analysis as pioneered by Professor Norman Fairclough.

I hope that you will understand that this exercise will take a considerable amount of time and that you will be patient until i can present the results.

I want only a neutral and objective account that satisfies not only the U.S. public, but also, the rest of the global community.

In the words of one of your senators - "I'll be back!"

TDM-UK 14:22, 26th August 2006.

You boys are a bit out of time, honestly, why don't you leave the books for a second and check what's on the Google? This is far beyond damage control; this will be completely rewritten, with logos and facts… Lovelight
Professor Noam Chomsky is not credible [351] [352] 87.118.100.99 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I get your point Lovelight. This would be a waste of my timeand so i retract my claim to offer an analysis. It's akin to teaching chimpanzees Mozart.

As for this Chomsky "is not credible" statement, well i'm afraid that the media isn't credible either and certainly not frontpagemag.com. Oh dear!

9/11 Timeline

I'd like to get a consensus on the addition of two links that I think are very important (I did not see either under "External links". One is Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline, which is very heavily detailed, and was turned into a book. Another is 911Timeline.net, a similar project. Are both biased? In some ways, yes. But the information contained on both sites make both links highly essential for anyone wishing to do more research on the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.--Fightingirish 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden

It's official: no evidence for bin laden being involved: [353] --Striver 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Prison Planet is an official source? Fascinating. Tell us more. --Golbez 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, I have to agree, Alex Jones is more of a smoke bomb then a beacon or in the words of skinner (OZ?), there is no need to turn this into ZOO… That being said, I do wonder on what true facts is current form of article based? Do you have even one source which proves motives and responsibilities so boldly stated in the editorial? You have none. On other hand there are more then valid sources which cast more than reasonable doubt on the big picture. One of these can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

PS Let me remind you that few days ago video came out on CNN where Bush clearly stated that there is no relation whatsoever between 911 and war in Iraq. Abiding to these volatile times, that stream was available for very limited time, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It is the nature of information on Internet to multiply when repressed so here is the truth, plain & simple: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/40631/ --Lovelight 6:28 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)

Get back on track here. We're talking about Bin Laden and 9/11, not Bin Laden and Saddam. Spread your FUD elsewhere. --Mmx1 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm right on track here, you see we have a false cause, therefore we have a false war, if one removes false cause, he will also remove false war(s). This sort of deduction is called logic, and there is really no way to fight it… So where were we? There is no proof for any nonsense stated in the article, there is no proof of a plain that supposedly hit Pentagon… and there is nothing honest in there. This event has global repercussions, and as soon as we remove false information you may be sure that I'll illustrate all of these, completely… So let me repeat that question above, where are the valid sources that prove connection between Osama & 911? I have to read your FUD here whether I wont to or not. So give me one valid source. One. --Lovelight 6:50 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)
They're in references 23-32. --Mmx1 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, nothing but lies there… One can easily dismiss every single one. Well, in a few days perhaps (or visit my page, beware of vandals though)… In mean time I would like to show you a riddle... Say, you know Christiane Amanpour, watch how this name get's new symbolism, as we slightly dissect it with logos. Christ+Aman+pour=lies. Now, I see that you are a hunter, so I'll just take it for granted that you know what Aman is? As far as associated press goes, the name itself implicates some form of connection. I always point to discussion here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3094... with such things in mind I honestly cannot consider FOX to be reliable source. Firstly, there's obvious danger of rabies, second, it is nature of the fox to be cunning… and as I see & hear people trust that source in same manner they trust prison planet… Whether you find these thoughts interesting or not, fact remains that all those references are refuted for a long time now (haven't really checked, but I would bet there are some related references in that unofficial part of the story, you know conspiracy?), there are voices calling for independent investigation and article should reflect that… that’s all. Keep in mind that official story is the poorest and dimmest of them all… whether administration simply failed to prevent attack or actually inflicted that "plastic knife wound", they are not to be trusted. As a military man I think that you'll enjoy this: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01, you'll also feel some rage… I promise:)… --Lovelight 7:44 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)

This is almost WP:BJAODN. almost. --Mmx1 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but please, do understand that I coupe with my feelings every day, I do tend to be overwhelmed by unnecessary death, pain and suffering… honestly!

You see, I know that you won't approve, I see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1963391; to be deeply related… --Lovelight 8:07 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)

And this: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ this should really become a classic knowledge; it clearly shows that fundamental flaw. It shows that the road ahead holds nothing but death and destruction. Such course of events is unsustainable, irrational, illogical, and very, very dangerous… --Lovelight 10:27 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)
I know that it's a bit out of place, nevertheless I find this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5286458.stm to be well timed & well placed…

Interesting flight numbers

It is interesting to note that the flight numbers follow a pattern. Starting with number 11 (flight AA 11), adding the digits of individual flights, it goes with 13 (flight UA 175), 14 (flight AA 77) and 12 (flight UA 93), where flight UA 93 is out of sequence that got delayed by 40 minutes at Newark airport. Otherwise, it would have hit after flight 11. Clearly, the master mind team has a taste of mathematics and they are at large.

ARCHIVE NUMERO 21

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 21

ARCHIVE NUMERO 22

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 22

ARCHIVE NUMERO 23

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 23

ARCHIVE NUMERO 24

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 24

ARCHIVE NUMERO 25

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 25

ARCHIVE NUMERO 26

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WTC insurance(sp?)

I think there should be an point in the article that stated the owner of the WTC made a insurance especifically against terrorist attacks a week or so before (this was in the New York times or some other famous US magazine, sorry but I don't have the images here, think I lost it) I, for once belive in the conpiracy teory (to some degree), but since we should be unparcial and only state the facts, that IS a fact. Daniel Parreira, Portugal

The number of U.s military deaths in iraq is equal to death in 11 sept

Pl add this also to the article as now the no of US death in iraq are now equal to 11 sept victims.Yousaf465

Not relevant. --Golbez 07:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it does matter a little it should be include in trivia. User talk:Yousaf465
It might be noteworthy with respect to the Iraq War, but not the September 11 attacks. Peter Grey 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But see the contrast america has scarificied more of it's Soldier to fight "Terrorism".User talk:Yousaf465
Brilliant...I got one for you...More Americans died after it entered WWII than died during Pearl Harbor also...amazing isn't it? TheFog 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Another important point relating to 9/11 is that many people believe that the Bush Administration colud not possibly be behind the September 11th attacks on their own US citizens. After all, it is asked, why would the nation's leaders let 3,000 of their own citizens die just for the enrichment of their family and friends and their own consolidation of power? However, the Iraq war proves that they would willing to kill 3,000 US citizens for that very reason. I think this is the main reason people find this fact so ccompelling. --WhatAGoodBoy 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I won't deny that it is an interesting bit of information, but I simply think it doesn't belong in this article, unless it is under trivia JLAF 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not have a connection with this article, because the Iraq War was not a consequence of any of the events of that day. It possibly could be justified under the Iraq War article, working backward to the Iraq-Al Qaeda mythology that was fabricated before the invasion. Peter Grey 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be misleading to include mention of the number of U.S. military deaths in iraq, that should not be included here at all, not in the article and not in triva. Powerful interests have tried to link Iraq and 9/11, there is no reason that wikipedia should be misleading the public the way MSM has.

Minor rewords

I am rewording the phrase "2,833 applications were received from the families of those massacred", as the term massacre does not belong here. I feel "killed" tells the same story, without lending any POV. On the other hand, I'll note that I'm not removing the phrase There were a number of reports from callers aboard the hijacked aircraft that suggest the hijackers murdered several people aboard the planes before impact as I feel the more "up close and personal" killings may make more of a claim for murder...though I accept that others may dispute this, and I am simply reserving judgment on the wording in that particular case. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is making a judgement at all; using the word 'killed' conveys the fact of what happened in a neutral fashion. Damburger 13:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, as I said - both "Murdered" and "Massacred" are POV words - but I just felt that they were different degrees. I don't support "murdered", especially in the case of individual airline passengers who were singled out for being killed, but I don't oppose it quite as strongly as I oppose "massacred"...so I'm leaving that rewording to someone else, like you ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I went for "killed" as being more encyclopedic. I also reread the whole reference. Heart-rending stuff. --Guinnog 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I would support "murdered" in certain places but not in others (hence my recent revert) - but "massacred", "slaughtered", "terminated", and whatever else would be flagrant coloration. Good for creative fiction, horrible for an encyclopedia. In some encyclopedic cases, though, "murdered" has a better ring to it than "killed", which can be a bit simplistic. Used sparingly, at least. --Action Jackson IV 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify - I think saying that Youseff P. Hijacker "murdered" the captain by stabbing him with a box cutter is okay - but Youseff P. Hijacker "killed" the people on board by crashing the plane. --Action Jackson IV 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just go with "killed" throughout in all cases except any where there has been legal action officially accusing someone of murder, or a direct quotation is being used (and even there it'd better be a worthwhile quotation and not simply a method to introduce the word "murder"). Barring those, let's just stay neutral and with what is certain. JDoorjam Talk 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I'm wrong. Good re-revert. --Action Jackson IV 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the term 'murder' has a specific and relevant meaning, and that if one of the hijackers were somehow bought to be trial they would be charged and swiftly found guilty - but that is still nonetheless a slight POV: The POV of those who would put the hijacker on trial. Yes, this may be nitpicking but I think that because this is a very prominent page about a very sensitive issue, it pays to be careful. Damburger 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The hijackers are all dead, since they committed suicide as they murdered thousands of people. Their act was premeditated and designed to kill, so they are indeed, murderers. Twisting that around is POV. However, for the flow of the article, using "killed" in some sentences simply reads better.--MONGO 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be the POV of those who think mass murder is a bad thing. Tom Harrison Talk 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this is an emotional issue for both of you, but try to be objective. Every instance where a human being is slain by another is 'killing' but not every instance is 'murdering'. Killing is classified as murder based on your point of view, but it is always killing. That is why we should use the neutral term. If you can't detatch yourself enough to see that I am right about this, I suggest that neither of you continue contributing to this article. Damburger 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the suicide hijackers did indeed premeditate their action and in the course of carrying out that action, they murdered almost 3,000 people. A person can be "killed" by an innocent action, and the 9/11 attacks were hardly innocent. I therefore, do not see you as "right" on this matter, anymore than your previous attempts to not want to see the word "terrorist" used here...which even the UN and every major source has called these attacks.--MONGO 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh Damburger, you were doing so great until that last sentence. Let's not make this "I'm right, you're wrong and biased." We're actually having dialogue on the issue without making it personal; let's continue in that direction. I agree with all but Damburger's last sentence: "kill" is simply more neutral, which we should strive for. The magnitude of the terrorists' actions is not lessened by using the more neutral term, but neutrality is gained. JDoorjam Talk 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are places where 'killed' is appropriate, and places where 'murdered' might be better. Neutrality is determined by the balance of reliable sources, not by editorial consensus. "If you can't detatch yourself enough to see that I am right about this, I suggest that neither of you continue contributing to this article" is one for the archives. Tom Harrison Talk 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree completely. Nobody here is saying it was anything other than murder by terrorists; I just don't think we need to labour the point by using the term constantly. Nobody reading the article will have any doubts about what kind of actions these were, but overdoing the statement of what is a technical legal term looks clunky to me aesthetically, and seems to slightly insult the intelligence of our readers. "Kill" is fine, as long as the rest of the article makes clear what happened and why, and I'd say it does. --Guinnog 05:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between killing and murder is not trivial. In the case of a conflict, what one side describes as murder (emotive word, bad thing) is often described by the other as a legitimate act of warfare. Murder, an emotive word, is a word to avoid on such acts. "X says Y is murder", yes. We, ourselves, should be wary to describe it without that format. "Killing" or "death of" are neutral wordings. We can let the reader decide what more he/she wishes to categorize them as and what view to take. So in this case, I strongly support a view that says, the word "murder" should not be used outside a "described as murder by X, Y and Z" format. For our own voice, use a more neutral word. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If we have a notable source who says the attacks were a legitimate act of warfare, let's have have a look at it. Maybe we can quote him in context in a sub-section on world reaction. Rejoice, Death to America, or something. The section mentioning jubilant celebration in Palestine is kind of short and could use some quotes. Tom Harrison Talk 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sparking off a nasty debate, what about that guy who called the people in the WTC 'little Eichmanns'? I can't remember his name but I'm sure somebody else mustve heard of that. If you need a counter source, that could be it. Damburger 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Ward Churchill, of Little Eichmann, Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy, and Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. Some might say we have enough coverage of the man, but maybe we can include him here as well, subject to notability and WP:BLP. Death to America redirects to Great Satan; we might be able to find a quote from someone there. I don't know if George Galloway has said anything about the attacks, or Omar Bakri Muhammad. No doubt there are others, but it depends on what exactly they said. Being objective and sophisticated intellectuals, some of their remarks were probably carefully nuanced. Tom Harrison Talk 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring your obvious sarcasm, these people should probably be mentioned briefly in the article, but thats another issue. You don't need a source to let you use neutral language such as 'kill'. It doesn't matter how many people consider the killing to be murder - its not encylcopedic in tone. Can't the reader decide for themselves if its murder after reading an objective factual account? Damburger 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What for...were they involved in the attacks...this articles is about the attacks on 9/11, not "Opinions about the attacks on 9/11".--MONGO 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, depending on the edit you are proposing, we may be arguing a moot point. But again, we get neutrality by giving due weight to the reliable sources, not by triangulation between my views and Noam Chomsky's. If substantially all the reliable sources say it was a murderous atrocity then that's what we ought to say, mentioning as appropriate that minority and fringe opinion say it was a legitimate military target, or the Jews did it, or that 9/11 never really happened (I don't expect that one to show up for a few years yet). There are murders, massacres, genocides, maniacs, and terrorism. If we are going to have pages about them, we have to say so. Otherwise what? Disputed conflict at Wounded Knee? The eruption of hostilities along the German/Polish border in 1939? Rwandan systematic killings? Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It DOES NOT MATTER how many people think 9/11 was A Bad Thing. Citations are irrelevant for deciding what language to use in the articles own voice.
I don't hold out much hope you will listen to me as you have not in the past, I'm writing purely to other readers. Damburger 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I read what you write, think about it, and reply. We just disagree about some things. We do agree, I hope, that argument by repetition is not useful. Tom Harrison Talk 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


The best source to determine whether or not a person died as a result of homicide is a death certificate, or the report of whomever signed the certificiate, where cause of death was described using a CDC classification system. For neutrality's sake the source of the assertion that deaths were classified as terrorism homicides needs to be cited. If I'm not mistaken, homicide is a medical finding while murder is a conclusion of law. If charges were brought but no convictions won, or if suspects died before they could be charged, unfortunately the finding of murder, however intuitively correct, might not be technically correct because no conclusion was reached. "Killed" is the lowest common denominator that does not broach potentially incorrect implications in the strictest sense. Those advocating a stronger term based on their gut reaction to the events may take comfort that many others will share their gut reaction if presented the same evidence. All that is needed here is the evidence, and the most basic but correct language.
Medical findings, as documented on coronors' or medical examiners' reports, likely classify each of the deaths from those events under ICD-10 as either U01.1 (Terrorism involving destruction of aircraft - homicide), U01.3(Terrorism involving fires, conflagration, and hot substances - homicide), U01.8 (Terrorism, other specified - homicide) and U03.9 (Terrorism by other and unspecified means - suicide) MunPi 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The best source to determine whether or not a person died as a result of homicide is a death certificate, or the report of whomever signed the certificiate, where cause of death was described using a CDC classification system. For neutrality's sake the source of the assertion that deaths were classified as terrorism homicides needs to be cited. If I'm not mistaken, homicide is a medical finding while murder is a conclusion of law. If charges were brought but no convictions won, or if suspects died before they could be charged, unfortunately the finding of murder, however intuitively correct, might not be technically correct because no conclusion was reached. "Killed" is the lowest common denominator that does not broach potentially incorrect implications in the strictest sense. Those advocating a stronger term based on their gut reaction to the events may take comfort that many others will share their gut reaction if presented the same evidence. All that is needed here is the evidence, and the most basic but correct language.
Medical findings, as documented on coronors' or medical examiners' reports, likely classify each of the deaths from those events under ICD-10 as either U01.1 (Terrorism involving destruction of aircraft - homicide), U01.3(Terrorism involving fires, conflagration, and hot substances - homicide), U01.8 (Terrorism, other specified - homicide) and U03.9 (Terrorism by other and unspecified means - suicide) MunPi 04:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2001

Can someone clarify what the difference is between this page and the September 11, 2001 page is? They are near mirrors of each other. --Daysleeper47 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. It should redirect to this page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative Research 911 Timeline Problems

The Cooperative Research 911 timeline link no longer links to a timeline, but a donation appeal. [354] This on its face seems to violate Wikipedia:Not An Advertisement. I also object to the inclusion of the Cooperative Research 911 timeline because I believe it violates Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:CITE in the following passages [355] :

Passage: Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from “my security people at the airport,” advising him to be cautious in traveling...The source of the warning, and why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: The conspiratorial spin given the passage is part of the Cooperative Research editorial, not the original sources.

Source does state that its unknown who gave the warning and why. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The tone is the problem. It implies the government knew about the attacks, and warned Brown. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt say the government at all. So I am not sure how the tone implies its the government that knew ... --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: An editorial in the Washington Post published hours before the 9/11 attacks reads, “When it comes to foreign policy, we have a tongue-tied administration.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Cooperative Research is using an op-ed as fact.

Permitted, even Wikipedia states that OP-Ed's in WP:RS sources are taken to have come from a reliable source and treated as such. Its believed that the OP-ED would still have to go through proper editorial standards and as such is accepted as any other article. So even Wikipedia does it and understands this as acceptable standard. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If a timeline were made of op-ed's, reality would appear differently, as it does in this timeline. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt matter, its permitted, your personal opinion doesnt trump policy. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Strangely, when stills from the surveillance camera are later publicly released, they show two time stamps, one of 5:45 and another of 5:53.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research. The original sources do not use this tone, or even note that it is strange.

No they do not, but isnt it? --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This is my point exactly. A conspiratorial tone is used, as Nuclear just confirmed. Abe Froman
1 in 30, but the image does show 2, which is odd. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Two Hours Before Attacks, Israeli Company Employees Receive Warnings

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The citations in this passage give the newspaper name and date. No byline, author, or section. It is unverifiable.

Citation is given, Dror, Yuval. 2001. "Odigo Says Workers Were Warned Of Attack." Ha'aretz. 26 September. & Washington Post. 2001. "Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack." 27 September. & Fallis, David S. and Ariana Eunjung Cha. 2001. 'Agents Following Suspect's Lenghty Electronic Trail; Web of Connections Used to Plan Attack." Washington Post. 4 October. There are more given. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Where are you getting this information? It is not linked in the timeline. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It is, you highlite the newspaper name and date and it pops up, why do I have to keep telling you that you are not doing it right. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Hijackers Drop Duffle Bag in Front of Mosque... No answers are given and the contents of the duffle bag are unknown.

Wikipedia:NPOV problem: Conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research.

Citation is listed Downey, Sarah and Michael Hirsh. 2002. "A Safe Haven?" Newsweek, 30 September. Its a direct quote, so its not a tone from Cooperative Research editor. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No answers are given and the contents of the duffle bag are unknown. Was that in the article? If not, it is more conspiratorial tone from the editor at Cooperative Research. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In every way I can read this sentence it still sounds like any usual statement about facts (or rather lack of them). No tone detected. SalvNaut 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It is in the article, go get the article and read it, its a direct quote. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Some question whether this was an assassination attempt modeled on the one used on Afghan leader Ahmed Massoud two days earlier

Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problem: The editor at Cooperative Research alleges an assassination attempt against George W Bush, not the sources. The sources themselves give no pages numbers, authors, bylines or sections.

This is admitted, he doesnt say who some are, however the assassination attempt is cited to Times and is correct. Time. 2002. "Blown Chances, Missed Clues: While White House officials debated going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 19 terrorists prepared for an attack that would shake a nation." 4 August. [356] Also Time is the one that makes it part of the 9/11 timeline by mentioning it really. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
We agree, an assassination attempt is implied. More conspiratorial tone from Cooperative research. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No Time made the connection in its timeline, further the local paper makes the same connection by asking is it a coincidence and 2 terrorists on XYZ, did you even read the article? --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Also we have in that same section the further citations Sullivan, Shay. 2001. "Possible Longboat Terrorist Incident: Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?" Longboat Observer. 26 September & Sullivan, Shay. 2001. 'Two Hijackers on Longboat?" Longboat Observer. 21 November. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: At the security checkpoint, all five would pass through a walk-through metal detector, and an X-ray machine would screen their carry-on luggage. But Logan Airport has no video surveillance of its checkpoints (see 1991-2000), so there is no documentary evidence of exactly when they go through, or how they are processed. Jennifer Gore, the young supervisor overseeing the checkpoint, is later unable to recall seeing any of them.

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The citation given for this statement is self-referential, linking to the same 911 timeline published by Cooperative Research.

Citation points you to the section on Logan Airport specifically which contains the citation. Brelis, Matthew and Matt Carroll. 2001. "FAA finds Logan security among worst in US." Boston Globe. 26 September Link here --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not linked in the timeline, so where is the citation coming from? Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, again for the 3rd time, you highlite the link and it shows the article authors and titles, that internal link takes you to the section on the airport where the citations are, sorry again you are wrong. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: ...that a passenger located in seat 10B [Satam Al Suqami] shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B [Daniel Lewin] at 9:20 am.

Wikipedia:CITE problem: The name, date, and retrieval method of the FAA memo used as a citation for this claim is not given.

Link was moved on Worldnetdaily, to prove this, here is the article [357]. Seems you just needed to read past the next sentence ... Or before to read what the source actually directly is since it states it. That article also contains the link to the FAA memo first draft so you can verify that as well, however its already stated that it is the memo first draft written by american airlines on 9/11 regarding activities on the plane, since the memo doesnt have a name that is pretty descriptive citation. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: Sayeret Matkal is a deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of foreign signals-intelligence materials, and the theft and destruction of foreign nuclear weaponry

Wikipedia:CITE problem: No citation is offered for Sayeret Matkal's activities. We must take it on faith that Cooperative Research has their Sayeret Matkal information correct.

Source provided Hersh, Seymour M. 2001. "Watching the warheads: The Risks To Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal." New Yorker. 29 October. [358], direct link to text by me so you can verify, though its not required. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation is good, but where did it come from? It is not linked in the timeline Abe Froman 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It is, again you highlite the link then the information comes up. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage: However, according to victims’ relatives who later hear this recording, the two managers at headquarters immediately begin discussing a cover-up of the hijacking details. They say, “don’t spread this around. Keep it close,” “Keep it quiet,” and “Let’s keep this among ourselves. What else can we find out from our own sources about what’s going on?

Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problem: The anecdotal allegation that American Airlines hushed up family members of the victims lacks even a citation, and is conspiratorial in tone.

Citation given: Sheehy, Gail. 2004. "9/11 Tapes Reveal Ground Personnel Muffled Attacks." New York observer. 17 June text can be found here if you want to read it directly. --NuclearZer0 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
So far I am only up to the early morning of September 11, 2001 in the timeline. Other editors, feel free to respond to my individual passages, find more, or register assent or dissent from my opinions on the timeline. Abe Froman 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I oppose including this (or any) timeline on this page. I'd remove it, but Thatcher131 said my last removal constituted edit warring. I guess he or someone else can deal with it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless the concerns about the passages listed above can be addressed, I think the timeline from Cooperative Research should be removed. I don't think removing it after discussing it in detail on Talk would constitute edit-warring. Abe Froman 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow I am going to remove the Cooperative Research timeline because of the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:CITE problems listed above. If anyone objects, please respond to the individual-passage concerns above. Abe Froman 00:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose removal, seek mediation, I will gladly participate. Per Thatcher131's reccomendation. as for WP:CITE you can actually look the article up online, if it links to the timeline but a different date, it means the citation is there. I think you should review but part of your NPOV issues lie more in the source since its quoting a source directly. So choose your mediation method. Also its not linking to a donation the timeline is there if you scroll down, much like Wikipedia they added a donation thing to the header, would you stop working on Wikipedia because of this? --NuclearZer0 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to point out your WP:CITE issues are because you do not know how the citations system works, just highlite the item it tells you the author date, article title etc. Also as long as the source = WP:RS then it doesnt matter if its an OPED. --NuclearZer0 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation issue is a problem, because the original sources in the timeline do not offer author, byline, or page number. We must take it on faith the Cooperative Research editor has accurately given the contents of an entire day's newspaper. This is a Wikipedia:Verifiability issue, which leads to me labeling it a Wikipedia:CITE issue. The Wikipedia:NPOV issues, highlighted almost a dozen times above, are unresolved as well. Should I take it we agree the editor at Cooperative research uses a conspiratorial editorial tone in the passages listed above? Abe Froman 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As I stated there is no Cite problem other then you not understanding how it works, you hold your mouse over the link and the citation appers, as noted above I presented them so you can read them. Also WP:RS does not state that it has ato be a weblink simply that it has to be a proper citation, directly from the article I have provided above all of the citations that you failed to see, perhaps its the way your browser is setup in some custom manner removing link tags, but the citations are all given. So no I do not agree and wish you didnt ignore me telling you that your Citing issue was wrong. --NuclearZer0 02:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Abe Froman's removal of link for a couple reasons. First, there is clearly no consensus for the links inclusion. Things got heated before, but no consensus was reached and a compromise I suggested wasn't inacted. Secondly, it links to a fund raiser: "Emergency Fundraiser Appeal! Cooperative Research Needs Your Help!" Most importantly though, there is no consensus for this addition. Abe Froman has also summarised the issues clearly. Rx StrangeLove 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Right even though the above points were totally negated. If you wish to go this route then lets all participate in mediation as Thatcher131 reccomended, choose the venue and leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. It also does not link to a fundraiser, thats like stating all links to Wikipedia link to a fundraiser, there just happens to be a fundraiser going on. This leads me to believe 1 of two things, either you did not even scroll on the page, or you did not even visit the link and simply jumped on Abe's points as before when your points were negated. Either way, again, pick the venue for mediation and I will gladly take part. Thank you and merry xmas. --NuclearZer0 05:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
They were not effectively negated and the fact remains that there is no consensus for the addition of the link. Re: the fundraiser, the difference is clear to anyone who looks. No consensus - no inclusion. Rx StrangeLove 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you reading what I am reading, he said there is no citations because he didnt know you hold the mouse cursor over the link to see the full citation ... Please stop now its starting to look like you arent paying attention to the discussion. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, start the mediation with a third party and let me know the venue, per the intervening admin. Merry Xmas again and have a good day. --NuclearZer0 15:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The link should be removed, for the reasons listed above. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Except those reasons have all been negated already, good reason to remove a link ... Since those reasons have been negated, guess that means the link should stay. --NuclearZer0 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Cooperative Research 911 Timeline

Resolution: The Cooperative Research 911 Timeline is unsuitable for inclusion in the 911 Attacks article because it links to a donation appeal [359], uses a conspiratorial editing tone, and has verifiability problems with its claimed sources. Abe Froman 18:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiratorial tone has been refuted and verifiability problems have as well. Turns out Abe didn't know if you highilite the link of the newspaper name and date, it shows you the article name and author. Also creating straw polls with bias introductions negate the straw poll. --NuclearZer0 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Disagree

  • I disagree because they indeed do source most of their claims, much more so than parts of this article which seem to be pure opinions. Whoblitzell
  • I disagree, because it seems to fit with the EL. See Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#External_Link_to_Cooperative_Research.—Slipgrid 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "uses a conspiratorial editing tone" - how would you support this claim? Is it your own opinnion? What is conspiratorial editing tone anyway? Have you ever analyzed other journal articles and have tried to find "conspiratorial tone" there? I bet you would find it. Word "conspiratorial" is missused again, or rather used in purpose as a slander word. CR911T provides reports which do not differ from other media reports. Face it, facts point to a conspiracy of some sort. Stop dismissing everything as "conspiracies can't be true". Do you agree that poisoning of Litvinenko involved some sort of conspiracy? Why I don't read this word in news reports about it? "has verifiability problems with its claimed sources" - it provides its sources. Have you ever insisted on verifiability when it comes to other (mainstream) media organizations? "links to a donation appeal" - I consider this to be nitpicking and this should not be an argument here. Wikipedia gives a link to donation, too. SalvNaut 20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree and straw polls do not trump policy, sorry but you guys are going to need to follow Thatcher131's reccomendation and seek formal mediation, I am more then ready for this as well. Straw polls cannot be used to alter policy as well, which Mongo as a former admin knows already. Nice try though. --NuclearZer0 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Lovelight 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I make no comment at all on the straw poll or its validity, except to say I find the idea of a "conspiratorial editing tone" faintly humorous. Surely this is a rather subjective reason to oppose something? The argument should stand or fall on verifiability alone, not someone's opinion of the tone. This actually weakens the argument I think. --Guinnog 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I don't like the request for funds but wikipedia has one so it's like the pot etc. I also don't like the fact that they are selling a DVD based on their timeline and it's advertised all over the site. However, this link is included in the September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks article so I don't see a problem with using it here. I still think we should just have it included on that page and link from here to the September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks. Hope all of you had a great holiday. --PTR 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Peter Grey, Links to be Avoided:

Peter Grey 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) : Falls under Links to be avoided: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13.

  • It does not fall under links to be avoided.
1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  • It has many resources that are not on Wikipedia.
2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
  • All the material sites sources.
3 Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  • It is not a site made to promote other websites. I look at it, and it shows very few ads when compared to a CNN.com, and it ask for donations, just like Wikipedia.
4 Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  • It doesn't like to sites that primarily exist to sell stuff. It links mostly to news sites, like the Washington Post, MSNBC, and others. It also links to sites like archive.org.
10 Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  • Were does it link to sites like this?
12 Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  • Where does it link to these?
13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
  • As far as I can see, the site is directly related to the 9/11 attacks. Hence the name, "Complete 911 Timeline."—Slipgrid 22:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, a good point-by-point rebuttal to weak ill-described assertion! Good job! Umeboshi 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true and accurate indeed. Nice seasonal gift for Wikipedia. SalvNaut 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Straw Polls do not trump policy, I ask everyone follow Thatcher131's reccomendation and we all join a form of mediation over this, Straw polls cannot trump policy like WP:EL and it seems a valid WP:EL arguement has not been made yet. So a straw poll cannot be used and instead I am willing to follow whatever mediation attempt is started. --NuclearZer0 11:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note So it turns out I found out why Tom, MONGO and some others do not like the link, but do not have any arguements. It seems Tom and MONGO just do not like the person who runs the site, voting on the AfD of their article without giving a reason as well. [360] There is MONGO, Tom, Aude and Morton. --NuclearZer0 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Abe Froman 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF - No assumptions were made. Just a note, perhaps you should follow your own posts. giggle point narf!--NuclearZer0 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As of December 26th 10:23am EST the straw poll is 10-3 in favor of removal. This is not meant to "trump," the link, merely to show the inclusion of the link is a minority opinion among editors on this page. Abe Froman 15:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As I stated an admin already stated further action should be in the form of mediation, straw polls are not end runs around administrators. Also straw polls do not determine concensus and 10-3 is surely not one, especially one made on xmas weekend and looking to be used as proof of anything 2 days later. So again, I tell you, please pick the form of mediation as stated by Thatcher131 and we can lay out our arguements/points to a neutral 3rd party to examine. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We're looking for consensus for it's addition, and it has nothing close to that at this point. Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As I stated an admin already stated further action should be in the form of mediation, straw polls are not end runs around administrators. Also straw polls do not determine concensus and 10-3 is surely not one, especially one made on xmas weekend and looking to be used as proof of anything 2 days later. So again, I tell you, please pick the form of mediation as stated by Thatcher131 and we can lay out our arguements/points to a neutral 3rd party to examine. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering your points above were dismissed since apparently you did not read the articles used for citations and apparently did not know that you highlite a link to see the full citation, I am not really sure anymore why you object to the site. Can't be because of citations because they are all there, doesnt use WP:RS sources? does. passes WP:EL as noted above. What is the objection? --NuclearZer0 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
And not to put too fine a point on it, WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy. It's also part of the manual of style...so judging consensus (however you feel about straw polls and voting in general) is a perfectly acceptable way of deciding issues like this. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No its not, because an admin has already stated further issues regarding the link should goto meditation. So again, pick the form of mediation and I will be glad to lay out my points and arguements and counter your points and arguements. So WP:EL is valid for complaining but when you are refuted then its a guideline that is not as important? please stop. Anyway pick your form of mediation, I am more then happy to participate. --NuclearZer0 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a mistaken belief that straw polls can have no place in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. Straw polls are a waypoint on the way to mediation. Please see the Dispute Resolution page for the scoop. [361] Abe Froman 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct and Thatcher131 has already explained above that we are at the mediation point, not on the way there. So again, pick the mediation venue and I will gladly participate. --NuclearZer0 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Since your arguments for including the link have been refuted, and there is no consensus to include it, the link should be removed. Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Cute, but as Thatcher131 said, seek mediation if this is going to continue, pick the venue and I will be glad to participate. I am not sure why the opposition doesnt want to have a indy 3rd party group examine the points, but that is what will have to happen per Thatcher131, thank you for your understanding and not attempting to make an end around Thatcher131. Again pick your venue I will be more then glad to present my points and debate your WP:EL concerns again. --NuclearZer0 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Have I missed something? Where arguments for including the link are refuted? I've seen no good argument for removing it. (no consensus?) SalvNaut 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the venue; you presented your points; a consensus found them unpersuasive, and thinks the link should be removed. Tom Harrison Talk 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry no, again, let me know what venue of mediation you choose, the ball is in the court of those that oppose. I await your choice so I can present my points to an indy third party --NuclearZer0 16:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You can draw up an artcle Rfc, but the timeline is full up cherry-picked references that give it a slant which is deliberately misleading and that should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about what happened. It is never up to the majority to bow to the minority in a consensus situation.--MONGO 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Some accusation, care to prove it? Doesnt matter really, we have a mediation started. --NuclearZer0 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What accusation are you alluding to? I can't see mediation as a proper venue to settle the case when the consensus to not include the link has already been clearly established here.--MONGO 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see anyone who thinks they have a valid point not be willing to make them to a third party. Your accusation was "the timeline is full up cherry-picked references that give it a slant" Anyway hope to see you in the mediation where you can lay out your points, its already been requested. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Requested for Cooperative Research 911 Timeline

Mediation has been requested. [362] Who is up for a cool-off period? Abe Froman 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Abe I think it will be great for everyone to argue their points now on actual policy/guideline. --NuclearZer0 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Surprised to see Tom refuse mediation, would think since he is such an ardent supporter of his point, that he would feel they had enough validity to be presented to a third party. At least some people feel they have valid points to make. --NuclearZer0 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagreed to mediation (though I was not the first) because policy and consensus are both against the link; and the argument behind that has already been excessive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen a policy discussion yet. Care to actually participate in one? Abe makes points above based on the fact that he doesnt know you highlight a link to see the citation, the points regarding WP:EL have been refuted above, some seem randomly chosen, stating Cooperative Research points to myspace pages ... --NuclearZer0 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been discussed here at tedious length, and a consensus has emerged that the link not be included. Tom Harrison Talk 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
10/3 is not a concensus and straw polls do not close in 2 days, please read the page on straw polls. Also Thatcher131 explained to you to seek mediation if you were going to push this issue, reason your ignoring them? --NuclearZer0 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Polls are bad anyway, but I have yet to see a valid argument for inclusion of the link. I routinely remove it from any article I find it in.--MONGO 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I see, so you have a problem with the page totally not based on its relation to this page. Thank you for being adult enough to admit that. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I too believe that concensus has been established, it is obvious that two or three editors will continue to argue the matter regardless. The only way to have it settled once and for all is to go through the motions likely leading to an eventual RfAr. Getting a case accepted will depend on showing attempts at dispute resolution, so I felt it worth a shot if for no other reason than to check off a few more boxes. --StuffOfInterest 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering Lovelight, Jdoorjam, and PTR have not voiced opinions yet, citing a "concensus" is highly premature. Also I still think mediation is best as Tom has yet to present an actual arguement and the same for Mongo, which in a concensus would show. Can't just say you agree, have to give a reason. --NuclearZer0 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have to reply to every comment out there? The reason I gave a reason is in hope of convincing some of the "disagree" votes to change in order to help move this issue to some sort of conclusion. --StuffOfInterest 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In the external link matter, we have steadily progressed through the dispute resolution process: discussion -> outside opinion -> straw poll -> and finally a mediation request. With the mediation request opposed, I am not sure what the next step is. I feel an RfC will be a rehash of the existing discussion; ultimately unhelpful. I find the status quo, with the link remaining, untenable as well. Comments on next steps? Abe Froman 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you should pursuade those that agree with you to take the mediation to make their points. An RfC cannot go through without dispute resolution attempts, especially with my being willing and MONGO, Tom and Sam not being willing, same for an RFAr. Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon, and I too do not agree with them. I am not really sure how Sam entered this discussion or some of the others you informed who didnt even voice opinions above yet PTR was not invited or JDoorjam. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"Though I doubt MONGO wants to see ArbCom anytime soon"...are you insinuating something here, my friend?--MONGO 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF, I teach at that school. --NuclearZer0 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well you know what they say; those who can, do; those who can't, teach. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasnt a literal teach, *giggle*. You get a blue star for trying. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't read too much into it. After all, your last experiense with ArbCom was less than pleasant. --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That's still confounding. I have no idea why NuclearUmpf is even discussing arbcom...and there has never been even a suggestion from them that I can't edit or comment on articles.--MONGO 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said you couldnt? cup of tea perhaps? --NuclearZer0 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you =) Better it came from a third party. --NuclearZer0 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the link. Tom Harrison Talk 17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Readded, even per Straw Polls page, it says wait a week or longer, also the poll was never agreed on by all participants, another requirement. --NuclearZer0 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"I am not sure what the next step is." The sensible next step is for the minority pushing for the link against all opposition to realise that it is not appropriate and to let it drop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I give up, its sad you guys do not even know what your appealing, Abe complaining of sources and asking where I magically got them from is a perfect example. I have cleaned up the EL section based on your opinions that we already have a timeline on Wikipedia and that donation appeals on pages make them removed, as well as the other points and well YouTube on the Arbcom decision of DMCVedit (sp?). I will be adding a section soon on the precursor to 9/11 and sourcing in this article, I will call it background. Have a good day and a wonderful holiday weekend. --NuclearZer0 17:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection

The page has been fully protected now. This is by no means an endorsement of the current version of the page, and it is only as a result of a request at WP:RFPP that I came here to protect the page. Hopefully, everything will be settled, and the protection can be lifted in a few days. Nishkid64 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By looking at the history, the edit war was started to remove a link that had consensus. The editors trying to remove the link will not sign up for formal dispute resolution, or make reasonable arguments as to why the link should be removed. The protected page is with the link removed. I request that the full protection be removed, and the link be added, until Tom and MANGO, the ones who keep removing the link, agree to formal dispute resolution. If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument. You should not allow their vandalism to stand, when they won't back up their changes with a formal ruling.—Slipgrid 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's MONGO, not MANGO and my edits are never vandalism. We are not going to aide that website in their quest for monies for whatever and their cherry-picking of references to POV push their agenda. One wonders what the motivations are of conspiracy theorists, but it is generally always profiteering. Wiki may also be soliciting for financial assistance, but they do so here, on their own website, so there is a difference. Articles that exist to promote profiteering of conspiracy theory books and misinformation as well as those who continuously try to aide and abet those websites and materials that are profit driven should be viewed as misusuing Wikipedia resources.--MONGO 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow just wow. You seriously need a cup of tea today. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes Wiki soliciting on their own site is different then CR soliciting on their site ... Or are you advocating the removal of all links to Wikipedia that exist on the web while the donating thing is up? Anyway MONgO I think you need to just chill out a bit today, you seem wiki stressed and hostile. Who is this "we" you talk about, remember you do not speak for Wikipedia, you aren't even an admin anymore. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm done with your personal attacks...whether I am or am not an admin is irrelevent to this situation and indeed, even as an admin, I never had any more say here than any other editor. I don't need a cup of tea, anymore than Sam Blanning does, so I suggest right now you stop making these kinds of comments.--MONGO 19:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You need to relax MONGO, there is no personal attack there. I am simply stating you should not make "we" statements because you do not speak for Wikipedia. If you choose to or not, have a cup of tea, you really need to relax and stop being so hostile. --NuclearZer0 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong place to make the request. Try over at WP:RFPP. Also, protecting admins don't protect a particular version. They just stop the edting until the dispute is resolved or enough parties loose interest. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As the protecting admin, I cannot revert to a previous version of the page, unless it is clear vandalism. This is not clear vandalism, so I will not revert to a different version of the page. I'm only doing my job, and I am by no means trying to endorse any version of the page. Also, inserting the link back as an intimidation device is not going to work here. Nishkid64 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that, by protecting the page in the middle of a revert war, you are choosing sides. The link was discussed, and was on the page for about two weeks. Then a revert war started on the basis of the straw poll, and the site is now protecting the results of the revert war. You are protecting the changes made by people who will not agree to the formal dispute resolution. For protection to ever be removed from this page, they will have to agree to the dispute resolution, or a disputed tag will have to be placed on the article. The version of the page that is protected should be the version before the revert war started. You should not protect the changes of the people who will not agree to formal mediation.—Slipgrid 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, you mean the page was protected in The Wrong Version? Well that's never happened before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I know! we will hold a straw poll ... you get a red star for this, it was a better attempt then the above. Red stars are good just so you know. --NuclearZer0 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You can make jokes, and they are very funny, but the page shouldn't have to be protected. Protecting the page goes against the very idea of a wiki. You should try to find a way to resolve the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"If they don't agree to formal resolution, then they must have a weak argument." What nonsense. Mediation is not there so you can go through the same arguments again, only in a "formal process", so that those who are already fed up and can't be bothered to go through it all again drop their opposition. Its purpose is to introduce an outside, uninvolved party, in the hope that an environment more conducive to compromise can be reached. Firstly, there is no room for compromise here. Either the link is in or it isn't. Secondly, we've been through all the points at least twice, we've had outside involvement (although someone rather snidely asked what I thought I was doing here; look up WP:OWN when you have a spare moment), and by any stretch of the imagination we've reached consensus. Mediation would not help anything. I was asked whether I supported mediation, and my response was: no, we are not trained seals, and no, we will not jump through more hoops. Every additional breath spent on this issue is one wasted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
O lets stop playing already, you haven't even made an arguement really, WP:EL, then its refuted, citations, then its shown Abe didnt realize he had to hold the mouse over the link, then the conspiracy tone, then its found out that Abe didnt read any of the articles on the page to know that. PS you dramatizing my remark doesnt change my words, I asked why you were informed and not others that actually participated in the above discussion, I think you need a cup of tea and to settle down, you are becoming a bit hostile. Perhaps you should read WP:EL. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If the arguments you made earlier hold water, then go through the "formal process" so we can resolve this dispute once and for all. If you want to continue to dribble nonsense without a third party to evaluate your claims, then revert the article to the version right before the revert wars started. Right now, we are protecting a disputed version of a disputed page, and you are standing in the way of resolving the dispute.—Slipgrid 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Since mediation didn't work you are always welcome to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which is WP:RfAr. --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked for ArbCom enforcement a couple weeks ago [363] with regards to Nuclear's, editing here (re:"tendentious editing or edit warring). Though I was turned down at that time, I respectfully disagree with Thatcher13's decision. I feel that his editing here is uncivil and combative and easily falls under the "tendentious editing or edit warring" section of his sanction. I have a hard time believing that this style of editing is acceptable on Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess when you cannot argue your point you attack the person. Maybe not much credit is given to people lodging complaints that also refuse to attempt to resolve the situation. ArbCom rulings are not scarlet letters or items to throw around so you can avoid discussing issues with your fellow editors. This is why one of the main policies here is "Discuss the edit, not the editor". --NuclearZer0 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the situation is resolved, with consensus (not unanimous but large majority) on not adding that link. Please just respect that. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Before half of you chimed in I had already given up, I guess it shows most of the people here are not even reading this talk page before chiming in. Some are appearing because they follow their friends history pages as well, which is the sad part. The voting in Tandem issue. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF please. I've been on wikibreak and too busy in real life, to follow every single detail in this discussion, and spend much time arguing over something that has no consensus or consensus against it. I've been on this page for well over a year, well aware of the discussions here, and will get more involved as time permits. --Aude (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
AGF? Not sure where the violation is. I am assuming you read the section you voted in, did you not? Its where I stated I gave up. Sorry you are too busy to read the section you voted in, I guess to you knowing the current discussion and what you are voting on wasnt necessary. --NuclearZer0 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Slipgrid, maybe you didn't know, but protection is supposed to be implemented during edit wars. What would the point of it if it wasn't used to stop edit wars? Also, I already said I am not choosing sides. I am only doing my job, and I don't take in account who's been editing the page prior to the protection. I just apply it, and that's all. Nishkid64 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nish, they are just following protocol. While it often leaves the locking admin in a bad position, they are not suppose to revert the page unless its vandalism. --NuclearZer0 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree that the discussion needs a chance to cool off. Peter Grey 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Animated Gif

thumb|left|150px|crash gifI see no reason why this animated gif should not be included within the article somewhere as it originally was included here. The reason given for removing it was cryptically defended as some sort of violation of image policy.

But these other animated gifs (as seen below) are used in other non-controversial wiki articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jupiter_Great_Red_Spot_Animation.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rivertree_thirds_md.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AnimECHECS-Le-coup-du-Berger3.gif

Mactographer 11:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say, given the emotional stake many people have in the attacks, that it might be unsuitable. But I would reject it simply as poor quality. Peter Grey 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree --NuclearZer0 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes me angry, that's for sure. But, I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. —Slipgrid 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. It's a copyright violation and should be deleted. You didn't take the video, did you? Compiling video/images that belong to others into an animated gif does not make you the owner of this material, nor give you the right to "release it into public domain".
  2. It's incredibly annoying that it keeps looping --I had to adblock it.
  3. It's poor quality.
  4. It is not recommended to use animated GIFs to display multiple photos. The method is not suitable for printing and also is not user friendly (users can not save individual images and have to wait before being able to view images while other images cycle round). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages
  5. Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages. --Aude (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


1. It's a copyright violation and should be deleted. You didn't take the video, did you? Compiling video/images that belong to others into an animated gif does not make you the owner of this material, nor give you the right to "release it into public domain".
  • Disagree, I believe it's fair use. It's an event that happened only once, it's of historic nature, and it can't be repeated.
2. It's incredibly annoying that it keeps looping --I had to adblock it.
  • That's just your point of view. You didn't have to do anything.
3. It's poor quality.
  • Yeah, but only because it's so small.
4. It is not recommended to use animated GIFs to display multiple photos. The method is not suitable for printing and also is not user friendly (users can not save individual images and have to wait before being able to view images while other images cycle round). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages
  • You also say you can't use animated gifs to display multiple photos. Now, an animation or a video is a collection of photos. It is a motion picture, or moving picture, which is made up of many pictures of the same event taken in sequence. I believe an example of displaying multiple photos in one gif (using your words), is much different. An example of that would be showing a picture of bombs going off at the WTC for a second, followed by a picture of the lawn at the Pentagon for a second, followed by a picture of the 15 by 20 ft cut in the grass in Shanksville for a second, followed by a photo of the moon landing, followed by a photo of chemtrails, followed by a Bilderberg Group photo. Now, that would be annoying, and violate the photo montage policy, because each of those would deserve it's own animated gif.
5. Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). -- per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages. --Aude (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think your fair use argument is a little weak. It's not a photo montage, but a video. It's a fair use video in a converted video format. He could have used a Flash version, but that's not as friendly to the web browsers. You have to have Flash software, or Window software, or QuickTime software to watch most videos on the web, but most any browser can view an animated gif. Please, don't be so quick to give Wikipeida's rights away, and mine ta boot. —Slipgrid 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great points, Slipgrid. And just for the record. I had nothing to do with creating this video, uploading or adding it to Wiki. I simply found it edited OUT of a previous version of: United Airlines Flight 175. I think it merits inclusion into BOTH this article and the United Airlines Flight 175 listing. Mactographer 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Outside view: I do not comment on the fair use of the image. But I disagree with placing it in the article because it is disturbing to watch over & over again. I have no problem linking to it. Pictures of dismembered corpses do not adorn the Jack the Ripper article, and likewise movies of exploding buildings full of people shouldn't adorn this one. Readers can click through a link on the page if they are curious. Abe Froman 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures of dismembered corpses do not adorn the Jack the Ripper article
  • Why is that? Maybe not corpses, but a corpse might be fitting. I have an Encyclopædia Britannica set at home, and I'm sure it has a nasty picture in it. Not a dismembered corpse, but I believe a dismembered womens breast sitting on a table. Anyway, it really makes a point. This isn't Mickey Mouses Playland here. In many respects, it's a very sick world, and it's not incorrect for an encyclopedia to reflect that. If you look at this article and want to lose your lunch, then you might be closer to understanding what happened that day. If instead you feel like rallying around the flag and fighting brown people, then this isn't really doing what it should.—Slipgrid 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno...if people are forced to watch that gif enough times, then that might be more motivation to go and fight a war. Images are useful only for the sake of clarification and documentation and I can't see how that gif adds much to the article. The quality is very poor and it doesn't even register on my puke meter...but I was there so seeing a gif like that can hardly come close to actually seeing the devastation first hand. A link to the gif is more than sufficient.--MONGO 13:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that reasoning. I think there many more important things that need to be shown about this day, though that is a fairly big part of the story. I just didn't agree with most of the other reasons given on this page. Now, I mentioned the Jack the Ripper image in another Encyclopedia, and it serves two purposes. It shows the crimes were brutal to a degree that you couldn't believe without seeing and they were also sexual in nature.—Slipgrid 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The image is currently a copyright violation (says it's released to the public domain, but uploader have no power to do so). It also does not identify the actual copyright holder and if we are going to call it fair use there needs to be a fair use rationale present on the image page. Unless those points are adressed fairly soon the image will be deleted regardles of wether or not you agree to put it in the article or not... --Sherool (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic?

Shouldn't the opening paragraph refer to the terrorists as Islamist and not Islamic? They are subtly different words that mean very different things. The first meaning extremists of the religion while the later refers to the religion as a whole.-Jeff (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree if it's verifiable, but unfortunately the hijackers never spelled out their motives. It does already call them extremists. Peter Grey 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moussaoui info should be given its own sub-header in the "other potential hijackers" segment

Due to the notable case brought against Moussaoui the segment entitled "Other potential hijackers" should be subdivided with his info first and then everyone else listed later in the segment. It is ridiculous that his name does not appear in the contents table, and you have to go out and Google around until you can get the right spelling and then come back and do a page search to find him in this article. Because he was found guilty you don't automaticlly realize that he might be included in "potential hijackers" (though once you find him there it seems a logical placement). It would aid the reader looking for his information to sub-divided the segment so they can click on his name from the contents table.--Wowaconia 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

1 The attacks
...
1.5 Other potential hijackers
1.5.1 Zacarias Moussaoui
1.5.2 Others mentioned as likely conspirators

Please change this, the article is currently locked against editing or I'd do it myself.--Wowaconia 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ARCHIVE NUMERO 27

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 27

ARCHIVE NUMERO 28

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 28

ARCHIVE NUMERO 29

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 29

ARCHIVE NUMERO 30

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 30

ARCHIVE NUMERO 31

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 31

ARCHIVE NUMERO 32

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 32

ARCHIVE NUMERO 33

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 33

ARCHIVE NUMERO 34

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 34

ARCHIVE NUMERO 35

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 35

ARCHIVE NUMERO 36

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 36

ARCHIVE NUMERO 37

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 37

ARCHIVE NUMERO 38

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 38

ARCHIVE NUMERO 39

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 39

ARCHIVE NUMERO 40

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 40

ARCHIVE NUMERO 41

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 41

ARCHIVE NUMERO 42

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 42

ARCHIVE NUMERO 43

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 43

ARCHIVE NUMERO 44

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 44

ARCHIVE NUMERO 45

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 45

ARCHIVE NUMERO 46

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 46

ARCHIVE NUMERO 47

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 47

ARCHIVE NUMERO 48

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 48

ARCHIVE NUMERO 49

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 49

ARCHIVE NUMERO 50

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 50