Talk:9/11 Commission Report

Previous discussions without headers
We do not need a separate article to discuss the specifics of the contents of the report. This article is not particularly long, so there's no reason to have a separate page for the summary. Enochlau 19:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the criticisms page has dissapeared, so I'll be ADDING some of them back in here. There are so many overt criticisms which mainstream publications have described, I don't think it's fair to just pretend they don't exist by eliminating the page. bov 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as they are cited to reliable sources, and not given undue weight. Tom Harrison Talk 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet, criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement have no such criteria for inclusion, no such warnings -- anything will do for Tom to accept it, no matter what the content of the criticism is, Tom will advocate for it. When it comes to the 9/11 truth movement, undue weight is no concern, only for the official version.  198.207.168.65 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This article claimed the 9/11 Commission Report contains twenty eight blanked out pages ("The Report contains 28 blanked-out pages that the Village Voice speculated on the contents of in a Dec 2005 article.") That's not true. That Village Voice article mostly discusses the 9/11 Commission Report but specifically refers to the Joint Congressional Inquiry at the end: "The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out"... User:Jeremy_a


 * I'm with Jeremy on this one. Read the sourced article - it explicitly references the Joint Congressional Inquiry, NOT the 9/11 Commission Report. I went ahead and deleted the reference, this is completely cut-and-dry.akronpow 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Coverage
This article should cover in greater detail the findings of the commission. Much of the discussion of criticisms of the report seems disconnected, because it refers to aspects of the report which are not discussed in the "Findings" section. --FOo 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rice-Tenet meeting withheld from commission
NYTimes Apparently Tenet told Rice point blank we were getting hit, and she brushed him off. That meeting was not revealed to the commission. That's according to Woodward's new book. I don't know if that best goes in this article or somewhere else rleated, as I'm not an active editor here. I just list it for your reference. Derex 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Report Criticisms Page
I've been doing some work with merging Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report with this page. I have also tried to fix the citations to be more consistent. The work that I have done is here. There are a few known problems with the citations. One of the criticisms belongs on the 9/11 Commission page. The reference to that criticism has the word 'discuss' misspelled to 'dicuss', but I kept true to the original title of the reference. Was that the right thing to do? Also there was one more reference that I couldn't reach at the time. I kept getting a 502 error from the server housing the reference. I would like some sort of peer review or discussion about moving the content over to this page. Please feel free to help with editing it, until it is in a good state to replace the current page. Umeboshi 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New Merge
I just noticed that a "merge" took place less than twenty minutes after I wrote the section above. And boy was it a sloppy merge. It would be more accurate to call it a deletion, as there is still much information on that page that never made it to this page. Where do I go now to find the information that used to be in the Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report article that did not get merged into this one? Umeboshi 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing, where is the talk page Talk:Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report archived at? Did it get merged also?  Where did it go? Umeboshi 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that the talk page is still there on the link that I created above, but I would still like to know where the "official" link to that talk page would be located. Umeboshi 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I've noticed that oddity too… it wasn't a merge at all. Here is an explanation from administrator who apparently "pulled" the page… Lovelight 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope your descriptions of sources are more careful than your description of my reply to you. Tom Harrison Talk 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tom wouldn’t know what went wrong but you did the last change and merge definitely didn’t take place. I'd certainly hope you would find some time to take a closer look and find a remedy to this unpleasant situation. Lovelight 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You could take a look here User:Umeboshi/911crmerge where I was already in the process of a more accurate merge. It may help you with your remedy.  For me, however, the hour is getting late and I will not be able to keep a sharp mind and continue much longer.  I viewed the explanation you received and found it lacking.  There was not a consensus on the merge, just a suggestion with a link to discuss.  It seems that there should be a better procedure to verify that a complete merge has taken place before cutting the cord on the inferior article.  There should be some sort of automated safeguards against this, like a "trash can queue" with a one week cycle.  This would, of course, be for all merges and deletions except for the really onerous (possible lawsuit/libel/vagrant defamation of character) ones.  If there is such a safeguard already in place that I am unaware of, I would like for somebody to point it out to me.  Anyway the contents of the missing article are already merged here, and the citations are somewhat better formed also.  Umeboshi 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant to say 'blatant' rather than 'vagrant' above. I must be getting sleepier than I thought. :) Umeboshi 04:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged

from here: 12:36, 31 May 2006

to here: 12:19, 1 June 2006

The next edit summary says "removing all original research." Tom Harrison Talk 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I suppose tomorrow, I start fixing the citations and putting the 'omissions', 'inaccuracies' and 'forewarnings' subsections into the criticism section. I'll probably also remove the criticism of the commission, and just focus on criticisms of the report. Thanks for clarifying things for me. Umeboshi 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, your efforts are more than appreciated… Lovelight 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that does not mean that "removing all original research" will need to be done again. Tom Harrison Talk 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one section discussing the FAA protocols that was uncited, thus has the earmarks of original research. I left it there and put a couple of Fact tags on it in the hopes that somebody more knowledgable could fill in the references.  The rest of the pieces all seem to be referenced by reliable sources.  I paused while I was writing this to take a closer look at the article.  After taking a new look at the "Prior Warnings" sections, I found that there wasn't a single reference in that section that mentioned this detail with respect to the commission report.  As such it does appear to be original research with respect to criticising the report.  At best it should be a paragraph under the "omissions" section, with a reference to a reliable source criticising that particular omission from the report.  However the information in the "Prior Warnings" section is well cited and should be merged into an article where it fits better.  Umeboshi 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "based in Afghanistan"
In the "Findings" section, I deleted "based in Afghanistan" because it makes it sound as though the hijackers were from Afghanistan, which is untrue. Hopefully you all agree that the deletion does not change or delete anything significant from the article, just removes ambiguity. Read the sentence and you'll agree.akronpow 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We should delete the David Ray Griffin book reference
Griffin's book, for those who haven't read it, is totally conspiratorial and speculative. I really don't think it should be listed as a valid work of criticism against the 9/11 Commission Report. He's one of those guys who believes the Bush administration knew about the attacks beforehand and allowed them to happen so they would have an excuse to invade Iraq. The book doesn't break down the Commission Report, it's just titled that way for advertising purposes.

David Ray Griffin's books completely demolish the 9/11 Commission Report piece by piece, so they should NOT be referenced here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping America ignorant.

Your friend, D. Cheney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.221.243 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No we shouldn't.
This is where it belongs. Unless, of course, you want to create a separate entry for it and link to it from here. It's obviously a valid work of criticism.

Wowest 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"official report"
I'm doing research on official government reports for an unrelated article. The first article sentence states that the 9/11 Commission Report is an "official report". I searched the report with the Clusty search tool for "official report" and got no results. So how do we know this is an "official report"? What is an "official report"? Did the Congress pass something or did the President sign something to accept the report, which thus made it official? Milo 07:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand main section
I just added an "Expand section" tag to the article. As another editor already noted previously, the main section of the article doesn't go into sufficient depth and detail. Moreover, the article as it currently stands has a serious imbalance between the main section and the Criticism section. This really needs to be redressed. Cgingold 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added a missing article and re-alphabetized a list of references which had gotten out of order. Wowest 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

misleading emphasis on Iraq ties
This article seems to be written to leave open the possibility of ties with Saddam Hussein, especially the sentence: "The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq." This sentence adds nothing of substance, except to perpetuate the belief many Americans have that there was a tie, when there is no evidence to that effect.  Its effect is to cancel out the denial of any such actual cooperation having taken place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasbo2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Illustrated Version
Someone should definitely mention the graphic adaptation of the 9/11 report by Jacobson and Colon. It's a fantastic example of how the techniques of graphic novels can be applied to non-fiction. (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illustrated-11-Commission-Report-Adaptation/dp/customer-reviews/0670916730) Adambisset (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant, "It's a fantastic example of how the techniques of graphic novels can be applied to fiction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.221.243 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind, however, that the goal is to be objective. Try to keep words like fantastic out of the mix, even if it may be the case, as it provides a baised view that would otherwise be disagreeable. Instead, try taking the information from the book such as, "Jacobson and Colón(I found the alt code for the o for us, it's [holding] 0243) gave an example of how the techniques of graphic novels can be applied to non-fiction" This would better present what we're going for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Saudi involvement
There has been a lot of recent press re-opening the question of the extent of the Saudi's involvement. Specifically a couple of members of the commission have said that redactions in the report hid this information. This subject needs deeper coverage than a single source claiming that Saudi Arabia has been cleared. Here's a good starting point for research: If someone else could take this up, I would appreciate it, as I'm working on other things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Worth reading to understand this 28 page secion! The article currently still says: "the commission "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization" to conspire in the attacks,[2] or that it funded the attackers even though the "report identifies Saudi Arabia as the primary source of al-Qaeda funding" but I don't think it's outdated, based on the info in this story; (at first I did based on a shorter story I read, but reading the NYT article changed my mind.)  The 28 page section is not in the report that this article is about.  Section below discusses this;  where's the evidence one way or the other? It's  clear these are different, but have many similarities.  Both come from Congress.  The 9/11 Commission Report was initially released July 22, 2004.  The article Dr. Fleischman links to refers to a report "released in December 2002".   So I think what the article currently says still seems to accurately describe "The 9/11 Commission Report", BUT some info about the 28 pages in the other report is worthy of mention - to clarify the situation.  How 'bout a parenthetical: (A 28 page section of an earlier, different 9/11 report has been in the news lately (2016), one with claims of greater Saudi involvement that, it's claimed, "did not withstand deeper scrutiny" by the Commission. )?  Boldly adding. -- Elvey (t•c) 17:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

28 pages classified by the Bush Administration
This refers to the Congressional Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and not the 9/11 Commission Report. Wildbear (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I hadn't noticed this distinction until you pointed it out. (I'm unaffiliated with 68.232.119.197.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Parenthetical to clarify this proposed by me, above.-- Elvey (t•c) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 9/11 Commission Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121023326/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001676.php to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001676.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section severely lacks some of the more commonly voiced criticisms about the report.

a) the complete omission of a chapter on foreign involvement, with a possible input from the now partially declassified 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Former Senator Bob Graham and a bipartisan committee are very vocal about this. b) the omission of investigating or even mentioning the collapse of the the third world trade center building, namely WTC7.

The section does not adequately address other issues mentioned in Criticism of the 9/11_Commission: It fails to even mention alleged conflicts of interest, a perceived resistance to investigation, unreliable intelligence due to interrogation under torture, critique by the then FBI director, and "Set up" to fail allegations by two co-chairs of the Commission.

The criticism addressed at shortcomings of the commission is currently present in a soft-gloved and non-specific quote from Harper's Magazine writer Benjamin DeMott. This presents a rather serious weakness of the current article. 92.177.233.247 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)