Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 11

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. 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  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 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 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 . 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  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 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.

-- Eric 17:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless, does continental United States sound better?
 * 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)

AlMac|(talk) 02:28, 26 July 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.

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, while elementary school students got one saying, "Dear Children." 

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:

left|none|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... ugen 64 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. &mdash; 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. 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: 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)
 * 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.

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 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, 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  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. &mdash;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 claims that the celebrants may have been bribed with food, as does this page on Wikipedia [].


 * 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, 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 —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. - Tεx  τ  urε  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. - Tεx  τ  urε  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)