Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 14

Photography
I don't see any plane in this pohotography. Ariev 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Um....maybe because it BLEW UP? --Mmx1 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) It blew up too in World Trade Center and some airplane parts have been found. Ariev 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Web Sites
List contriversal/conspiracy web sites. That pretty much means list websites that tell the truth...





"Experts"
A lot of you seem to think you're "experts" on this topic (you wouldn't be editing pages otherwise).

If you feel expert enough to edit these pages, please take a little time to actually investigate the topic.

Proactively seek the truth. Make up your own mind. Don't believe everything you're told, and definately don't believe everything the Bush and the PNAC neo-cons tell you about 9/11.

911truth.org

You're no expert yourself. If you think Bush would actually plan out the 9/11 attacks YOUR CRAZY!!! I just hate people like you.

Confusion
There was some confusion between OrbitOne and myself; he thought I caused the vandalism. Everything's worked out now. Xiphoris 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Meved this down from up top....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, there was some obvious vandalism to this page with someone defacing it to say that Saddam Hussein was behind it, UFOs, Effiel Tower was hit, etc. I tried to revert it properly but don't know if I did. Xiphoris 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of templates. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved this down from up top.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
...so why did User:SNIyer12 delete all of the page contents...? Jhardin@impsec 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He just put the older stuff in archives, where you can still read them. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just put the older stuff so that I can reduce the page size. However, you can still read the older stuff in the archives. SNIyer12 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a headline on this......--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions
To tell the truth, i think the government knew all about 9/11 n' crap. Oh, and if the towers fell from planes, then why did they fall EXACTLY how buildings fall when they are dynamited eh? I think that 9/11 was all planned. Son Goku22
 * Yes... I have the same suspicion. Here's a web site that I found. Oh, by the way, try to remember to put a headline on the section.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the bulge
I am repeating this because it is unfinsihed business that was archived.

This article is still too long. It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky. I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality. It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section). How about it, guys? We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also want to point out that we have over 40 URL footnotes. That is too many.  We should delegate that stuff to the "main article" subpages or make regular references out of them. With seven subpages, it should be possible to get this article below 30 KBytes.  -- Pinktulip 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 commission is not the story
This is about what happened on 9/11 and its specfic aftermath. Please do not insert the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. Please do not insert the word "terrorist" into the text an excessive number of times. The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists. The 9/11 Commission has its own page. -- Pinktulip 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is correct to say that the terrorists were terrorists; ostentatiously avoiding the word is not neutrality. Some editors have thought it necessary to make clear that the 9/11 Commission is the organization that using the 't' word; this is part of why I was concerned with your (otherwise reasonable) efforts to trim fat from the article. In trimming fat, you also cut out the citations that some thought needed to be there. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The reader already konws that people who hijack planes are terrorists."
 * No, people who hijack planes are not exclusively terrorists. See article about Aircraft hijacking for many cases (ransoms, etc.), which are not described "terrorism" but just "criminal".
 * Terrorism is strongly politically colored word without clear definition, and therefore should be avoided (see words to avoid guidelines). Politically motivated aircraft hijackers should be refered to with word "militant" - it includes all the same information without being arbitrary used for political purposes. Klaam 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...you seem to be very attuned for someone with so few edits...have we met before? Sorry if the term is perjorative...this is an article about an event that happened in the U.S. and every single media source and the U.S. Government call the actions of the hijackers terrorists...they didn't just take the planes to Tahiti...they used them as missles, killing almost 3,000 people and that is terrorism.--MONGO 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if everysingle Pakistani and Middle-East media describes Pakistani civilian village bombed by US with word "terrorism", is that a good reason to refer to CIA or whatever as a US-supported terrorist organizations in Wikipedia articles? On the other hand, many acts called 'terrorism' by US media are globally (possibly by larger population) called militarism. We should not define the use of words according to media in some country, but use politically neural word as "militant".
 * And on the other hand, one of the 911 attacks was on military target and others could be described as strategic targets like tv-station and power station in iraq war, thus someone might argue that civilian casualties were just unnecessarily casualties (and yes, Bin Laden said so).
 * Or is "terrorism" defined by number of civilian casualties? Someone might argue, that CIA is equal to Taleban-era Afghanistan supported Al-Qaeda because it equipped and supported acts done by Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet, Talebans, etc., which after all, resulted entire genocides. So civilian casualties can't be the defining criteria either.
 * I suggest that the word "terrorism" is used only in citations.Klaam 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or every single Chinese media and Chinese government labeling independece movements such Falun Gong (which has killed pro-government civilians) "terrorist pr
 * Tom Harrison: You are spliting hairs. We are not talking about hijacking cargo planes.  Kidnapping is an act of violence and terrorism, even if a ransom is asked for.  It is only the coercive force of threatened violence that puts the kidnappers into a position to demand the ransom. It is not as if you could argue that the kidnappers are entrepeneurs who are starting a profitable new business because the act itself is fundamentally destructive to civilization. Your approach suggests that you wish to reduce to the discussion down to simply calling some of the participants "terrorists" and letting it go at that.  Wikipedia is not about providing labels.  It is about providing information and letting the reader be the judge. -- Pinktulip 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article (currently) says that "The 9/11 Commission states in its final report that the nineteen hijackers who carried out the attack were terrorists." That's cited, verifiable, and relevant. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: The reader, does not need the help of the 9/11 Commission to figure out that the attackers are terrorists. The assertion can be made by the article that Al-Quaida is a terrorist organization without the help of the 9/11 Commission. Please stop re-inserting the 9/11 Commission into the lead section. -- Pinktulip 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an important and relevant fact that should appear prominently. I support its inclusion in the introduction. Tom Harrison Talk 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the reader need the Warren Commission to tell him that Lee Harvey Oswald was an "assasin"? No. Does the reader need the corresponding Commissions of the Challenger/Columbia shuttle loses to tell him that those events were "disasters" and "accidents"? No. So also, the reader does not need this Comission's word of "terrorist". The reader can figure it out for himself. -- Pinktulip 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not find your analogies persuasive. Leaving out relevant details to avoid any mention of the 't' word does not give us commendable brevity, it gives us an incomplete article. Bending over backwards to avoid using the word "terrorist" is not the path to neutrality. If you have citations from some notable and verifiable source saying that they were not terrorists, but instead gallant freedom-fighters, give us a source and we can consider including it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill Harrison: Let us take this scenario: We currently keep the mention of two wars to the thrird paragraph, but you keep inserting the 9/11 commission into the second paragraph. I think that this represents a lack of perspective on what is historically Important. The 9/11 Commission happened much later than 9/11 and merely collected information and submitted a report. If it provides new facts about what happened earlier, then incorporate those specific facts. If you want to add that "NYC/USA/World was terrorized to some quantifiable degree", then that would not be incorrect, but the reader can probably figure out this somewhat vague notion on their own, based on the other, more specific facts. I am going to wait another day and then I am going to remove your added reference to the 9/11 Commssion again because it does not fit into the historical narrative. -- Pinktulip 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It is 9/12. You have full information about what happened prior to and on 9/11 and your job was to report what happened on 9/11.  The Commission has not yet happened and you are not required to provide historical context of a forward-looking nature.  Under those circumstances, how should the first two paragraphs lead section read?  I suggest that, under those circumstances, the first two paragraphs should not mention the 9/11 Commision because it has not yet happened.  I suggest further that this is how the paragraphs should read now and from now on.
 * 2) Five years have passed and then you add a third paragraph about the aftermath without changing the first two paragraphs at all.
 * 3) Ten years have passed and it is now time to update the article again. You are considering updating the first two paragraphs, even though you had full infomration at the time you wrote those two paragraphs.  You are thinking about adding the phrase "...which later lead to..." but you want to do minimal change, again, because you did have full information at that time.  Which phrase, if either, do you chose to add:
 * "...which later lead to two wars..."
 * "...which later lead to a 9/11 commision to calling the attackers terrorists..."


 * In spite of your insistence, I still think these facts need to be featured prominently in the introduction, for the reasons I have presented above. If your position is that it must be removed and replaced with your version, I don't see that there's much room for discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist" words occur 30 times
Using the word "terrorist", "terror", etc. occur thirty times in the article; that is more than enough. It is merely a label and provides little information to the reader. 30 times is more than enough. It occurs once in the lead section and that is sufficient. -- Pinktulip 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia guidelines:

''The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)''

''It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are.''

I agree with pinktulip that adding 9/11 Commision to the lead section adds bloat without important new information. What is the problem with word "militant"? What is the specific need why it should be replaced with the word "terrorist"?

I'd kindly appreciate if all the contributors introduced themselves into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia should not be a political battlefield, so please don't start edit wars against clearly stated policies and guidelines - instead, discuss about your opinions in the talk pages. Thanks. Klaam 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And the "Al-Qaeda" article, in its own right, demonstrates that the organization is a terrorist organization, so no further explaination in this page is needed. -- Pinktulip 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If another article is written poorly, I don't think that's a reason to use controversial terms in this article. How does the Al-Qaeda article "demonstrate that the organization is a terrorist organization"? Klaam 13:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Al-Qaeda article needs improvement, then please contribute what you have to offer. I still assert that it is the lack of our ability to briefly and efffectly summarize these other articles that causes this article to bloat and be of low quality. -- Pinktulip 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The descriptive word is terrorist. It is verifiable and it is cited. This is the Wikipedia policy. It is necessary to label the 19 hijackers as terrorists. There is a problem with the word militant -- it is inaccurate. What's been called bloat appears to me to be a smokescreen in order to prevent the article from describing their acts [to] make clear what they are. (quoting the guideline already mentioned) patsw 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patsw: Your comment in your most recent change to the Talk page "Perhaps it should occur 35 times" helps to highlight the problem. Such repeatative usage of a word in a historical narrative is a warning sign of a problem. It might not really be problem, but it might be a problem with balance, it might be POV. It is not hard to see how such a repetative usage leads to bloat. If you really think that there is some kind of smokescreen, then please just cut through it an point out what it is that is behind that smokescreen and that is so Important. -- Pinktulip 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is best to not use numerous alternative words to descripe the same entity, as that would be confusing...except in different tones of voice...take for example the American Civil War...the Northern forces are called:Yankees, federals, and Union...the Southern forces are called Rebels, Confederates,Southerners, etc...and there are other terms I have found. To the outside person that is unfamiliar with the situation, this terms, when spred out in an article can become confusing. This is an article about an event that happened in the U.S., and since the vast majority of media, the U.S. government and citizens of the U.S. believe that the actions of the hijackers was terrorism, then that is within the balance of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, where it also states that the majority viewpoint need not be removed to give undue weight to the extreme minority ...as a point in that passage, it clear states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I understand that some extreme elements find the term terrorist to be pejorative...but it is the extreme minority viewpoint, and at best, deserves only a passing comment here, or to needs to be relegated to a subarticle.--MONGO 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not math or science where such consistent terminology might be best. This is human history where each day and each person and each event is unique.  Parallels can be drawn, but each event is unique.  If we could simply derive 9/11 from a bunch of definitions and axioms and theorems, then that wold make the job easier, but that simply is not the case. I think that most readers of history prefer to see some breadth of vocabulary in the narrative so that they can form their own opinion based on the reported facts and the range of terms used to describe the complex and varied events.  Again, the word "terrorist" does not convey a great deal of specific information about specifically what happened. The reader would prefer a more specific term for some fo the participants, such as "hijacker" interspersed with the T-word, so immediately, using the same word in a monotonous fashion again breaks down. -- Pinktulip 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The uniqueness of the events of 9/11 present the greatest opportunity in human history to indeed use the term terrorism without anyone aside from the extreme fringe to be in disagreement. I recognize we are writing for the world, but this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and it need not adopt the extreme minority viewpoint at the expense of reality.--MONGO 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Our "opportunity" is when a reader bothers to even try to read this article. Our job is to inform the reader about what happened.  Using the word "terrorist" as much or more than is in the current article does that job, but the results fall solidly in the realm of mediocrity. -- Pinktulip 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A terrorist is not a necessarily also a militant...militants do not necessarily engage in terrorism. This is the English language version of Wikipedia...and in the English speaking world the overwhelming vast majority of news sources worldwide, the U.S. Government, most governments of Europe, even asia and elaswhere cosnider the actions of the hijackers to be terrorism...the actions of all hijackers almost definitely fits this term also...as I said, this was a severe hijacking...the planes were used as bombs and it was planned that way...the extremist fringe minority does not get equal footing in article space to minimize factual terminology and definitions. I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of terrorism could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers.--MONGO 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo: My only interest is in seeing this article achieve the Featured Article status. I assert that any Wikipedia article (other than, of course, the Terrorism article and its ilk) that attempts to present present itself as a historical narrative and uses "terrorist" (and its derivatives) more than thirty times in the one article, given the current arbitrary limit of 32 KB for article size will not achieve Featured Article status in the forseeable future. I suggest you look at the works of this teenager: User:Lord Emsworth .  Note that he has produced many Featured Articles and rarely found the need to use the "terrorist" words despite that fact that he was frequently writing about people engaged in warfare. -- Pinktulip 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. The best way to achieve featured article status is to be factual in evidence and in terminology. I think we would be selling out to the minoity view if we used terminology that is weaselly...Lord Elmsworth's articles are impressive...his future is bright for sure. Regardless, none of them are discussing a contemporary event of this magnitude and or of this experience. I've seen the arguments that the Bombing of dresden was terrorism, that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan are terrorism...I say fine...put that in those articles then...but the fact remains that no other term better fits the description of what we are discussing here, in THIS article, than terrorism. Militant doesn't work, nor infidel, enemy combatant, freedom fighter, soldier, etc. If you are so concerned about this becoming a FA, then work on trimming about 10 to 15 KB off the article, and it needs about 20 more references anyway if it's going to remain this huge.--MONGO 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can reword the article to eliminate the need for the word to be used so often, or any descriptive word to appear so often. That should give you a project here. Remove the need for the use of the word that appears so abundantly by rewriting sentnces to that the word doesn't have to be there. Bear in mind that it's still going to be there though so it's complete removal I oppose completely, but as an effort to work on this, I'll support the rephrasing of sentences in some sections so that no descriptive word is necessary...that will make veryone happy I think.--MONGO 08:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mongo: Lord Em wrote about people involved in life-or-death struggles involving total warfare where the stakes involved were often a matter of national survival. Many atrocities and other acts occurred that, compared to 9/11, could much more easily qualify as terrorism.  Your notion of magnitude seems to lack historical perspective.  Those events were, in fact, of much greater magnitude in terms of the number of fatalities and the stakes involved.  Those events were not televized, but many of the acts were clearly designed to terrorize, yet Lord Em rarely resorts that phrase. -- Pinktulip 09:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing different things so don't take them out of context. I give a little in my last comment and that isn't enough. Obviously you want the term terrorist removed from here and that aint gonna happen. I've looked through and read many of those articles over the past year and the word terrorism doesn't fit in most cases anyway.--MONGO 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Reader fatigue" with the word terrorist will take a back seat to accuracy in describing the people who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001. patsw 14:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I already pointed out: Lord Em achieved accurracy w/o excessive use of the word, even though he could have defended his choice to use it a great deal. You should really ask yourself: What does he have you you have not got? I suuggest that he, despite his youth, has a larger vocabulary and a n ability to uee it properly. -- Pinktulip 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that your comment is a personal attack so you need to read about that for future reference WP:NPA...our vocabularies are fine and again, none of his articles are compariable. The word terrorist stays as that is the best definition to fit the actions.--MONGO 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that there are people who love and respect patsw just exactly because of who he is. No one seems to disagree with the suggestion that his vocabulary is smaller.  Perhaps that limitation is what makes his Soul him so endearing to us all.  It does not make him any less of a person in our eyes or in God's eyes.  It just keeps him from being able to produce a Featured Article.  I love him.  We all love him.  If I could, I would give him a hug, right now.  You love him, do you not, Mongo?  Or is it MONGO?  Anyway, please write a message, Mongo, that says you love patsw.  I am beginning to have my doubts with you.  Just a simple message, Mongo, saying "I love patsw".  And maybe that you would give him a hug also.  Nothing sexual, of course.   -- Pinktulip 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I love everybody! I disagree with your comment that patsw has a small vocabulary. What purpose does your other comment "It just keeps him from being able to produce a Featured Article" serve. Maybe he has a featured article and doesn't brag about it...maybe he doesn't want to write a featured article...but definitely, you owe him a big apology absolutely. Sooner, the better.--MONGO 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (removed long-ish joke apology).


 * What is this all about? Why is it HERE? Not sure it even belongs there but it should be in patsw's talk page, but not here for sure. I'm inclined to remove this in all honesty.--MONGO 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

9-11 was a conspiracy
I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of conspiracy could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers 69.231.8.216 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and try to get a feel for the consensus there. Thanks. El_C 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I misread that. Still, I felt the addition suffered from some issues. My latest changes are here. Thanks. El_C 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of teenagers looking to boost some pairs of Nikes from Wal-Mart is a conspiracy as well. What's the point? patsw 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, "conspiracy" is a far more meaningful, accurate and appropriate word than "set", "group" or "series", the three words which have been inserted to replace it. Trying to compare two teenagers stealing shoes with (at least) 20 terrorists conspiring for years and succeeding in killing thousands and destroying $billions in property, this is a vacuous comparison.


 * If you don't use "set", "group" or "series" it's not just POV, it's bad English. The conspiracy preceded the attacks.  Once the assault was underway, the four groups or sets of hijackers could no longer conspire. Ruby 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To me the part about the conspiracies is incredibly biased. It basically says that the theories are put forward by those that hate the government or even America (Gods own nation iself!) or are just trying to get money of it. In my eyes, that is nowhere near neutral. JS 15 February 2006

Comparison with Antietam
I have noticed the edits and reverts, concerning comparisons of the 9/11 death toll with those of the Battle of Antietam, during the Civil War. I think some clarifications are needed:
 * 1) I don't think that Rmmbrhllwn / 68.185.250.128 / MI6mole quite understands what the term casualty means.  Casualites include fatalities, as well as # wounded.
 * 2) The Battle of Antietam, which occurred on September 17, 1862, resulted in 3,620 deaths (both sides), not 20,000 as was stated in this article.
 * 3) The Battle of Gettysburg occurred over three days, with 6,655.  I don't know how many occurred on each of the days, but probably not as many as 2,986.
 * 4) The Battle of Shiloh occurred over two days, with 3,477 deaths.  Again, probably not as many as 2,986 were killed on either of those particular days.
 * 5) I also think making a comparison between military deaths during war and civilian deaths during a terrorist attacks, doesn't fit in the article, yet alone the introduction.
 * -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but bear in mind that those figures are not accurate for confederate troops and in some cases, only count federal dead. Regardless, there is no need to evn have the comparison in the article anyway...it serves no purpose except to make the event of 9/11 seem less important than it was.--MONGO 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hijackers
Another user insisted that this topic was to be created. I added a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) disputing the claim of the "nineteen hijackers". I see no problem adding this link. Do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.180 (talk • contribs)


 * I also remember the doubts about some of the hijackers in the days following the attacks... I think you're referring to Waleed_al-Shehri. However, the reports of surviving 'hijackers' were later discounted, as a mix-up involving names &mdash; very common names in Saudi Arabia.  The following article (and quote) is cited in the Waleed al-Shehri article on Wikipedia:


 * "...at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.


 * The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain." - quote from (Spiegel online, September 8, 2003)


 * -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. you can sign your comments by adding ~.

It should be noted that some of the "hijackers" are ALIVE and well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm --Tyler rurdon That was dated the 23 of September, 2001, when news was sketchy. What does the 911 commission have to say about it? Do you honestly think that hasn't been resolved? --Mmx1 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrations
It should be noted that there were demonstrations all over the world in protest against these terrorist acts. Some information should be noted. As a sidenote, even as I regard the Yussuf Islam issue important I do not think it belongs to this article. Get-back-world-respect 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I second both these points; the Yussuf Islam issue was in fact what I came to this talk page to write about. Also Yassir Arafat's push for Palestinian schoolchildren to donate blood, while totally absurd, was definitely part of the international reaction. --Rschmertz 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall there was once in this article a mention of demonstrations supporting the 9/11 terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria. The mention was removed since the person adding it was unable or unwilling to provide a citation or other verification of the event. Information that can be verified  is always welcome. patsw 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I am just going to help you find the relevant pages:


 * Category:September 11, 2001 attacks - very helpful in determining the scope of the existing coverage
 * Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks - to navigate to this page, you have to go through Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Quite boring,  but that is the existing structure that has been established now for quite some time now.
 * So...my message is: You are always welcome to REVIEW THE EXISTING WORK before you go adding redundant and jumbled references on the main 9/11 page (thereby condemnning it to never becoming a Featured Article) to things that are, oh yes, very yummy and sensational, but that you seem to only vaguely recall. -- Pinktulip 12:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's put an end to the charade here and now.
It is now beyond ridiculous to have this site including so much proven disinformation. Wikipedia will be judged by how soon it came to the same conclusion millions are now coming to--9-11 was an elaborate fraud involving the controlled demolition of a set of aging, asbestos-ridden office buildings that contained investigative files from the SEC and a whole lot of other stuff that was destroyed. There is ZERO evidence for the involvement of any of the alleged hijackers, and bin Laden did NOT ever admit guilt (see fake audio tapes, fake terror experts, and fake arab news networks. Members of the Project for a New American Century, a collection of radical neoconservatives, planned and executed the attacks after stealing the election in 2000, using the "attacks"  as a pretext for wars of economics and geopolitics.  These are FACTS, people.  Open your eyes and we can save what's left of our country. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.28.241 (talk • contribs) .  (*sigh*)

Nearly every crime can be looked at from two differing, but equally important facets. First, the investigator will thoroughly examine the evidence, looking for clues in the evidence that may point to the perpetrator. Secondly, the crime must be looked at within the context of which they were committed. Perhaps the most important question regarding September 11th is cuo bono -- who benefits? Anybody that does research beyond the hard-hitting, objective journalism of CNN will come to realize that the sheer number of inconsistencies -- the time of the collapse (significance: recall Newton's third law and the free-fall speed of the collapse), the mysterious collapse of WTC7, the statistic-defying symmmetry of both collapses, numerous reports of secondary-devices [explosives] (including audio testimony, video interviews, and siesmic graphs), the unwillingness of Administration officials to testify under oath, the initial blocking of an investigation into the collapses, ... -- weighs heavily against the complete official account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.32.123 (talk • contribs)


 * "recall Newton's third law..." Good advice. Tom Harrison Talk 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, why hasn't ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FNC, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, BBC (any one of them), PBS, or ANY newspaper. If this was correct, I'm sure anyone of them would want to break this story, as it would be the biggest story ever.  If you know about, I'm sure the people at the Norfolk Times knows, and I'm just curious as to why this hasn't been story 1 since they uncovered it. Its easy to call something fake (audio tapes of bin Laden) when you have already chosen what you beleive. There is already a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory page, I suggest you make use of it's talk page. Squiggyfm 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to judge the facts, simply to state them. Some of the objections raised by the 'conspiracy' theorists are valid, such as why did the steel girders break in a fire that may have been intense (~1000-1500F) for 20 minutes when steel has a significantly higher melting point than that and is crafted to withstand fire of these temperatures, whether there are insulators present or not.  One might argue that few buildings have had airliners crash into them, but the WTC was made to be highly redundent in support and the aluminum/fiber construction of airliners are weak compared to the steel girders of the WTC, how many beams could one airplace possibly take out?  Additionally, WTC7 never had an airplane incident and still fell... is this too the result of a fire?  No building in the history of steel-framed buildings has ever fallen as a result of just a fire, why suddenly WTC7?  Sorry if you feel that I am simply catering to 'conspiracy' theories here, but these remain valid questions.  Wikipedia was not founded to blindly follow official statements when seeking the facts of the matter.  Maintain NPOV, temperate prose, and cite your sources; as long as the evidence stands on its own and spurious claims are withheld (e.g. Bush did it!), I see no reason why facts should be shunned. Did I mention cite your sources?  Nhandler 08:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What facts? Is there any proof of controlled demolition? No, none. These other steel frame structures you speak of, were they hit by wide body jets flying at 500 to almost 600 miles per hour? No, they weren't. As far as WTC7, were any of these other steel frame structures that have never fallen due to fire also near the destabilizing effects of 1 million tons of debris that had fallen up to 1,350 feet? No. There are dozens of web sites postulating the same straw man arguments and not a one of them has any proof of controlled demolition. As stated by Squiggyfm, the press would have a field day if there was evidence of controlled demolition. Furthermore, not all those that did the investigations into this situation were on the federal doll...what purpose would hiding evidence of controlled demolition do for them. This argument has been going on for over 4 years now and I have yet to see one piece of evidence that would prove that the buildings were imploded. It's all just a bunch of innuendo and speculation.--MONGO 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof or not, WP should still include what people believe. WP should not be he judge but simply state the fact. And the fact is that there are a distinct minority who belive they have the evidence to proove that WTC was demoed. They may be wrong. We are not skilled enough to find out, and if we did it would be original research. But WP should include this information. Didn't Jimbo said something like "we can write about what people believe"?. There are plenty of articles with hypotheses and theories that has not been proved e.g. religious articles, various physic theories etc. --EyesAllMine 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we don't write about hypothetical opinions here unless we make it clear that this viewpoint is held by a fringe minority. The fact is this distinct minority has no proof whatsoever....none.--MONGO 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe there needs to be a sub-article titled "Conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks". --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some more possible names:
 * Alternative theories concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks
 * Non-mainstream theories concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks
 * Creative theories regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks
 * --StuffOfInterest 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like the 9/11 conspiracy theories linked in the infobox? Rmhermen 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That works. :) If it doesn't already, perhaps the main article should have a small section on conspiracy theories with a " " reference to send people out to the sub-article. --StuffOfInterest 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think a link in the infobox is more than enough. We shouldn't burry common conspiracy theories, but we shouldn't propagate them either.  (And as a long time editor of the conspiracy theories page, I can tell you that that page is one of the hardest to keep NPOV because of the zeal of the theorists.) --Quasipalm 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  --MONGO 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is more that the facts aren't known, so it's a debate with 2 sides presenting their cases, and people are split into believing either side. If you look at both sides, neither can be dismissed. The US Gov provided some interesting facts, like the 9/11 commission report and various reports, and can't be dismissed. On the other hand, the critics have also provided lots of facts, like the fact that it is physically impossible for fuel to burn hot enough to break the steel that was used in the towers, that the hole shown in the picture of the Pentagon before the collapse is simply too small for a jet to fit in, and the nearby windows are still visible and unbroken. The point is that it's a debate, yet this article shows it as if the Gov' story was the facts and the other side was just disgruntled critics, which I think it wrong. It should give the same weight to both sides. Elfguy 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Split? I'd say there are a few misguided folks that would believe anything the conspiracy theorists are selling. The hole in the buildings is not too small for the planes to "fit into"? No it isn't...the south tower of the WTC had a tear 164 feet long (wingspan 157), none of the reports have stated that the steel needed to melt...it didn't need to...all it needed was to be heavily damaged and heated enough to bend or fatigue it...here are some engineer discussions that have nothing to do with the federal version:
 * He was talking about the hole in the Pentagon. But I don't think gasoline-filled aluminum (wings) traveling at several hundred miles and hour would leave much of a dent in solid stone.  The wings got sheared off.  And as for the pictures of the windows not being damaged around the impact zone of the Pentagon (doesn't really matter since fires were raging all around them), that can be attributed to the fact of that side of the Pentagon had recently been upgraded with "explosion-resistant" glass.  And thats what they did, resisted the explosion.Squiggyfm 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unawnsered questions: Ariev 18:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2006
 * Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax - Yahoo News

This is interesting, but it's not news. It's a press release. They're self-proclaimed experts. They wrote this themselves for distribution. Perhaps their claims are true, but this isn't an actual news piece written by journalists, it's a press release written by the people making these claims talking in the third person. What I find really interesting is that Yahoo News seems to have picked it up as news. --Mr. Billion 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds, one of the named people in the group has stated that aircrafts had nothing to do with the collapse of the world trade center...the isn't a single expert in this group that knows the first thing about controlled demolition... and here is a discussion of the largest building ever imploded by experts that do implosions for a living. The task of doing controlled demolition on the WTC would have been one of a magnitude several times greater than the largest building every imploded...not to mention the coverup. Company profile and discussion of the world record largest implosion .--MONGO 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to video google, and type 9/11....the first hit is a one-hour 'all-facts, no nonesense' documentary detailing just how impossible it is that 9/11 occurred as we are now being told it did.

They don't claim to be experts in controlled demolition; they simply show you that there *WERE* multiple explosions level by level and that many of the onlookers said it sounded like and looked like a controlled demolition exercise.

seeking consensus on adding external link
Hey there crusaders. Great, 3 words in and it's already potentially loaded language. *laughs weakly*

just quickly, i haven't read the archived discussions but i have read the article and this page in its entirety. Apologies for those bothered by a topic already covered being brought up again, if that's the case, but having considered that may be the case i think it merits further consideration.

I think that http://st911.org/ should be included as an external link.

I know that many will say that it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracies page, but i think that its content is in the conspiracies page. Adding it as a link recognizes that there is an increasingly divergent opinion about the facts of the tower collapses. Wikipedia is great in that its content is factually supported as best as possible (recent study indicated that Wikipedia is generally at least as reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica on science and nature articles) but also able to incorporate new information. 3 of the papers published by PhDs at the site i'm suggesting respond to the findings of the 9/11 Commission. They report interviews with highly regarded demolition experts, they add additional information about certain events in the lead up to and the follow up of the WTC collapse.

They do have a wide base of skills and experience within their membership, and if there is objection to adding a link to their site on the grounds that some of its content or links it provides are not as well supported as others, then i believe there should be a link from this Wikipedia article to at least the same article as linked to from the WTC7 Wikipedia entry which is available on the ST911 site.

I am not starting any argument here based on things which I've read, watched, listened to, or considered and i don't feel i need to or that anybody needs to take a contrary 'raving loonie conspiracy' stance. The article would be more complete if the link was included in the External Links section, or if Scholars for 911 truth was hyperlinked when it's mentioned in the article, although that would then have to go to a Wiki about them before linking.Holigopoly 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a judgment on the validity of the website or the group's arguments, but simply the list of links on September 11, 2001 attacks is already very long, perhaps too long as-is. I think links should go on the most relevant sub-article.  In this case, I think the best place for the link is Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where Scholars for 9/11 Truth is discussed. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SAMs
The second plane, Flight 175, hit at 9:03 and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Yet in 34 minutes between the two hits, surface-to-air missiles were completely ignored and they had to scramble fighters from miles away to try to intercept Flight 77? I've always wondered about this. Did Washington believe that Flight 77 was somehow different from the others and that it WASN'T going to be a suicide run? Why weren't surface-to-air missiles used to take down Flight 77?--Secret Agent Man 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because SAMs are designed to travel short distances. Even the most advanced SAMs used by the US Navy (Standard missile) that we know about maxes out at about 90 nautical miles.  The liklihood of having lots of SAMs on the east coast ready to launch during peace time is probably pretty small.
 * Also, my guess would be that the plan would be to try and incapacitate the plane as a missle, without killing everyone on board. This kind of a mission could only be carried out by manned aircraft.
 * This is all conjecture of course. :-)  -Quasipalm 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were no SAMs to launch. US air defense has relied almost exclusively on fighter intercept since the mid 1970's when most of the Nike-Hercules sites were deactivated.  Patriot batteries are generally deployed overseas or at training areas in the US.  There have been reports of shorter range SAM's (Hawk or Stinger) being deployed on or around key structures in Washington since 9-11, but I have to specific information on that.  These days, longer range SAM's are intended more for anti-missle than anti-aircraft use. ClaudeMuncey 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Patsw and MONGO POVing this page again
I am not putting in 'scare' quotes. What do you mean by that? When I last asked for request for comment the consensus that came out of it was that terrorist word was undefined and too POV to use it (unless article is quoting USGOV) --  max rspct   leave a message  14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where was this consensus established, i.e. that the word terrorist was undefined and too POV to use in reference to the 19 highjackers? patsw 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Max, come on man. What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism...maybe the actions of the U.S. with using the atomic bombs on Japan or bombing Dresden was terrorism too...I don't care about that...we are editing an article about 9/11, not WWII. You just recently got through reverting the Terrorism article in which you reverted back to a version that clearly stated that Terrorism is "outside the bounds of conventional warfare" and the hijackers actions were clearly just that. You don't like the U.S. or whatever, but cease this singling other editors out by name...it is borderline personal attack.--MONGO 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is much abused word and is currently being applied (by USGOV, media and their defenders) in away that is much broader than violence against innocent civilians. We have a big problem if you are going to equate terrorism with unconventional warfare. Also, the WTC attack was an attack on the economy of USA > it was not deliberatly targeted at innocent civilians. When it comes to US-sponsered  terrorism (and don't forget past genocides and the torture going on in Guantanamo bay right now) I don't even have to mention the atomic/fire bombings. What about Gen Wesley Clark and his bombings of infrastructure and bridges in Serbia (to undermine serbian economy and moral) during the Kosovo War - are you going to tell me they were terrorist actions or not? On those hi-tech images of bombs going into those bridges it was clear that civilian traffic was on them and the results were as dramatic and horrific as the sequence of events on 9/11... tho I am sure US TV networks weren't pitching their tents next to those parts of Serbia etc etc that were being bombed. My main concern is the blanket use of that term (terrorism) within this article including the generalising description of Indonesian and Philipino Islamic movements. As for calling someone by their usename ...well what are usernames for if you can't alert people on talkpages...? If you keep making threats against me MONGO (a dishonourable way of trying to put people off editing this page) I will go for arbitration with you about that AND this article. Perhaps you are just overzealous. As for unconventional warfare - don't tell me the USA hasn't engaged in this as you know perfectly well they have. Last week US defence chiefs unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism: "..require global mobility, rapid strike, sustained unconventional warfare.." See America's long war --  max rspct   leave a message  18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To avoid generalizations, I think the word "Islamofascist terrorist" is the appropriate one, because it's specific and non-sweeping. It doesn't try to paint all believers as terrorists, nor even those with Islamofascist beliefs -- it identifies those which are the culprits of the 9/11 attacks -- those with radical, militant, religious beliefs who also couple these beliefs with violent action. We are not talking about all terrorists in this article, nor are we talking about conventional insurgent activity, which is far too broad for the scope of this article. It's a specific non-judgmental term. Morton devonshire 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You must be joking yeah? How is Islamofascist terrorist not a sweeping label - Please don't troll here! Lets be factual, unbias and not used recently invented terms hey! --  max rspct    leave a message  13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:AGF. Not trying to do anything except be descriptive, because what we are talking about here is a specific group of terrorists.  Looks like you're on your own with this issue.  User:Zen-master fought a similar cheese-stands-alone battle on the term "conspiracy theory," and wouldn't give it up -- the Administrators finally banned him for one year because he wouldn't pay attention to consensus, and kept insisting on his POV.  I didn't have anything to do with that, just hoping that you won't get stuck on attacking the term "terrorist", which seems to be well-defined and accepted as a neutral term.  What we need is a term that narrowly describes the people that flew the airplanes into the towers, but large enough to include their aiders and abettors -- Islamofascist terrorists seems appropriate, or simply terrorists.  Wikipedia has already decided that the word "terrorist" is a neutral term -- please consider accepting this Wikipedia consensus.  Morton devonshire 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about conspiracy theories. When is this terrorism as neutral word on wikipedia then? I can only find this> Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Also, see this from terrorism article > "The definition of a terrorist is so fraught with problems that Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary of Great Britain was forced into providing a list of "approved terrorists" in an attempt to pass his anti-terrorist bill. There was clearly no point in passing legislation to ban people from applauding terrorists if some national and international heroes were not on his list." Intersting huh? The word is not properly defined and should not be used. Throughout the apartheid years the ANC constantly referred to as terorist by the National Party government. And look where we're at now. --  max rspct   leave a message  22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quit playing games with the language. Just because you aren't sure where the boundaries are doesn't mean you throw your hands up and say the term is meaningless. Similarly, there's great difficulty defining what a Limited War is in the sphere of military history. There's debate around the fringes, but it's pretty clear that Vietnam was a limited war and WWII was not. It's pretty clear that the 9-11 hijackers are terrorists.

--Mmx1 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I keep getting Appeal to emotion, Appeal to motive and Ad hominem - "oh come on Max" "Quit playing games.." etc. Will someone please explain why 'terrorists' should be applied to this article ..while without refering to death, disatser or USGOV view. All MONGO can come up with (besides trying to equate it with unconventional warfare) is "What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism..." Where's the explanation? Terrorism is much undefined and contentious and therefore should not be used in the article except when presenting the USGOV (and their supporters) view of events. --  max rspct   leave a message  22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you not follow the link I provided in which you reverted back to the definition that terrorism is outside the bounds of conventional warfare. That, is also, ipso facto, the definition essentially embraced by the UN. It's getting tiresome with my username being tossed around, so I'm going to ask this to stop...thank you.--MONGO 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as appeals to motive, and ad hominem, what is the title of this section? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with..." What word do the governments and newspapers of these countries use? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? So newspapers say something is so.. then that's truth right? No room for unbiasness..? The NYtimes says such and such so it must be true? I am not saying that 9/11 hijackers have not been called terrorists. I am not saying that I do not believe they were terrorists. I am just saying that this article should be unbias and take into account both sides of this war without having one view dominating the article. This is happening with the use of the word terrorist. As I have said before Reuters and BBC have preferenced 'insurgents' over terrorists'. --  max rspct   leave a message  23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

see these> Use of word in Canadian news, BBC actions, BBC again, ..oh and of course CNN backs you up > --  max rspct    leave a message  23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked you what the newspapers and governments of those countries call them. I think the New York Times is published in New York, though maybe they have a far east edition. And I did not ask you about the 9/11 terrorists, I asked you about the terrorists with whom the Philippine and Indonesian governments are having conflicts. Anyway, If you don't know, as I don't know, what the local people call them, maybe it would be useful to find out. You say the newspapers' choice doesn't determine what's correct, then you point to the BBC and Reuters and say we should follow their example - Why? Tom Harrison Talk 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article deals with a historical event for which the relevant facts are not likely to change. The article and the talk page are not a discussion board on American imperialism, semantics, or compare and contrast the style guides of the BBC with the Associated Press.  If you want to argue that the 19 were insurgents and not terrorists, then explain it on the basis of it being the most accurate word descriptive of their actions of September 11,2001, and attempt to establish a new editing consensus for this article. patsw 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant what the local governments and press call the people they are plagued with. The term I recommend to refer to the terrorists in the Philippines and Indonesia is Islamic extremist terrorists. This is technically accurate and, I think, supported by use in the local media. I don't think anything involving Islamofascist is likely to be stable, is probably not used in the Phillipines or Indonesia, and is probably less technically correct in this context. Still, I prefer Islamofascist terrorists to insurgents, which is not an accurate description. Unless I've misunderstood, none of this discussion is about what to call the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Islamic extremist terrorists is perfectly fine with me. Shall we vote and end this?  Morton devonshire 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Islamofascism" is a ridiculous phrase. --Mr. Billion 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Islamofascism has been tabled. Islamic extremist terrorists is still perfectly fine with me.  Shall we vote and end this?  I vote against the term "insurgent".  I vote for the term "Islamic extremist terrorists."  Morton devonshire 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * With all respect to Morton, I'm not sure this is the kind of thing we should vote on. I changed it in the article; let's see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Islamic extremist terrorists" is redundant. Just use "Islamic terrorists." --Cberlet 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Move sentence
"The anniversary of September 11, 2001 was dedicated as 'Patriots day'." Can someone move or remove this from the intro? My browser can't edit the intro without chopping off the end of the page. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Worst Case Scenario
What historical articles of any encyclopedia have a hypothetical "worst case scenario" to describe what didn't happen?

Even thought it's an authoritative source doing the speculating, it doesn't alter the fact that it is expressing speculation as opposed to an account of what actually happened. patsw 00:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If a 60-passenger-capacity school bus crashes, and there's no kids in it, that's relevant. It helps place the incident in context.  Morton devonshire 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll play along and imagine for a moment we're a newspaper and not an encyclopedia: please elaborate how, after mentioning the number of actual victims, it's relevant in a news story to mention the hypothetical death toll if all seats were occupied? Why not calculate a hypothetical higher death toll based on the number who should have been inside the World Trade Center and Pentagon but actually were not because of assignment, sickness, or vacation?  Or the additional deaths if One World Trade Center (i.e. the North Tower) fell over on the World Financial Center or Two World Trade Center (i.e. the South Tower) had toppled on the buildings from Broadway to Pearl Street.


 * Also, I looked for actual news accounts of school bus accidents and guess what, none of the stories mentioned the seating capacity of the bus. I guess I own you one for suggesting an example that supports the point I'm trying to make. patsw 01:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ow, you got me. Score: Pedanticism 1, Morton 0  : )  Morton devonshire 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pov and split
This aricle is pov. It claims the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory to be factual, something diputed all over the world, even by Bush's former economy minister. All factual statements of the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be NPOVed and the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be split to its own article, just att all other 9/11 conspiracy theroies are on other articles --Striver 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is simply absurd. The page mentions that some dispute the overwhelming evidence implicating Bin Laden, and provides links.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that is great. But POV. The article champions the theory as factual, and doing so is pov as long as it is contested by a notable amount of people. --Striver 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is factual, and well supported. Disputes are appropriately noted already. By the way, what's the tag for "Delete - POV fork?" Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not factual, the bin laden conspiracy theory is contested, and all the "evidence" it supports itself on is also contested. You may belive it is factual, and you are free to do so. I belive other theories to be factual. This article CLAIMIN one or another theory is factual is POV. It needs to present all of them as theories, and factualy claim that the Bin Laden theory is the one most people regard as credibl--Striver 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)e, and most people belive to be factual.


 * The article properly satisfies verifiability, and citing sources policies, and appropriately notes alternative theories. There is no need to slap a POV tag on the entire article.  And the article is already split into multiple articles, which are accessible from this main article and through the template TOC. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is something specific about the article you feel is POV, let's discuss it. But, I don't know what you meed by "a notable amount of people".  It is very widely, overwhelmingly accepted (and cited in the article) that Bin Laden was behind the attacks.  Other theories are noted in the article, but are they accepted by "a notable amount of people"?  what do you mean by "notable"?  We need something more specific and verifiable, with citations from reliable sources, than "a notable amount of people". -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * the article does a very good job at Verifying that most people belive in this theory. But that does NOT mean it is NPOV to claim it to be factual. My problem is NOT that this theory is the most widely accpeted, and even belived to be factual by many. My problem is that that wikipedia CLAIMS it IS factual, a clear breach in NPOV.

I will give you a list of educated and notable people disputing the theory, i cant do it from here. Ill return with a list in about 4-5 houres. --Striver 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the old "NPOV means we can only state that some people say the earth is round while others believe it is flat" argument. Not true. Not what NPOV means. This is postmodernism on crack.--Cberlet 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not comaparable with the flat earth theory. We dont have congress womans and university teachers and ex-NYPD people beliving the earth is flat.--Striver 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:POVFORK for the guideline on why 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory should be, and shortly will be deleted. patsw 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the allegation of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory being a POV fork. This article is MAINLY about the attack, not about any eventual theories about how and why. That is easly demostrated by the desicion of removing all OTHER theories to its separate article. But i wont pursue that, its better to me to focus on another angle:

This article states the most popular conspiracy theory to be factual. That is POV. I want that NPOVed. --Striver 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory. It is a factual account, well supported by verifiable citations. To the extent that there is disagreement, the article addresses that and refers the reader to other pages for more information. I'm not even convinced that, as the tag says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't think the mere fact that someone says, "That's POV" means the article has to be tagged until they're satisfied. That interpretation would allow an unscrupulous editor (not you, speaking in general here) to hold any article hostage. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that this is a POV DISPUTE? Am i air to you?--Striver 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It takes more to tag an article than someone insisting that it be tagged. Otherwise, I could go to any article on Wikipedia and say, "That's POV! The tag stays until I'm satisfied that it is neutral." Surely you agree that the standard must be higher than that. Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom is 100% correct. Rather than tagging the article again and again, please point out specific instances where you feel the text passes judgment inappropriately. I don't agree that the conspiracy allegations (and accusers) are reputable enough to be mentioned anywhere outside of the CT section. There is no reason to allude to these theories by watering down every sentence in the article. The official account, news reports, the overwhelming majority of scientists, first-person reports, phone calls from the planes, and the international community all support the theory that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers were responsible for the attacks. Rhobite 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bin Laden openly admits he orchestrated the whole thing. So the Bush administration says it's Bin Laden, scientists says it's Bin Laden and Bin Laden says their right. It would be POV to say it may not have been Bin Laden in spite of it. Celcius 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Admin Neutrality A Myth?
The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality. Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources. Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins? Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for supporting me. --Striver 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins are held to the same editing standards as every other editor. If you have concerns about conduct by a Wikipedia user, please follow the Dispute resolution process. Please remember that admins are people too, and it would be unreasonable to believe they should be perfect in all ways. Everyone has made some mistakes at some point. Rhobite 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

List of people not accepting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory

 * James Bamford, investigative journalist, and a former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight.
 * Cite Please. His book critiques the intelligence community for failing to prepare and pickup the threat but does not purport alternative theories regarding the commission of the hijackngs.--Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert M. Bowman Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD and retired Lt. Col for United States Air Force, a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War
 * Former Air Force administrator with a mediocre political campaign attempting to petition onto the ballot for Congress in Florida. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lawyer Kristin Breitweiser is one of four widows who lost their husbands on 9/11 that formed a group known as the "Jersey Girls."
 * Andreas von Bülow is a former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service and former Minister for Research and Technology in the cabinet of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and for 25 years an SPD member of the German parliament
 * As has been corrected on his page, he was state-secretary in the Defense Ministry, not "assistant defense minister". Perhaps a German can elaborate on the difference. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
 * Tom Flocco is a Philadelphia-based independent investigative journalist and teacher who has written for American Free Press, From The Wilderness, Judicial Watch, Narco News, NewsMax.com, Scoop.co.nz and WorldNetDaily.
 * Rodger Herbst, bachelor of aeronautical and astronautical engineering and mechanical engineer
 * Jim Hoffman, software engineer
 * "In order to more easily research the many complex details of the September 11th attacks, Hoffman put together a collection of original hypertext pages of information. By developing a software tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, he was able to quickly navigate to any of its many pages. Originally developed as a research tool, the system later evolved into the 911-Research website.[1]"
 * In other words.....he put together a website. --Mmx1 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, coined the term cold fusion.
 * Peter Lance is an investigative reporter, a former ABC News correspondent, and a five-time Emmy-winner
 * Michael Meacher UK Minister of Environment
 * John Newman spent 21 years in Army Intelligence and served as Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency.
 * Michael C. Ruppert, a former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
 * Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat and emeritus English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
 * David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton

Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens

You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --Striver 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And these people's opinions are already covered in a multitude of articles. Rhobite 20:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So? I didnt ask you to represent them, i said that... yeah, you read it. --Striver 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are also misrepresenting the Zogby poll, which asked New Yorkers if they believed some US leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". The poll response has nothing to do with opinions on whether Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. The wording of the question isn't even specific to the WTC attacks, it only asks if leaders generally knew about attacks planned around September 11. And last I checked, we don't draw forensic conclusions based on opinion polls. Rhobite 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rhobite. I'm so sick of people mis-representing this poll -- I see it all the time online and it drives me nuts.  --Quasipalm 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that any of the above claimed support for any conspiracy theory, i just claimed they did not agree with the official conspiracy theory.--Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The official theory is that neirth the Bush administration, nor the FBI, nor the CIA KNEW about it.

The people in the Zogby poll claimed they did not belive in that theory, instead they belived that they at LEAST knew about it and "they consciously failed to act". This article does not even MENTION that. a clear breach of NPOV. --Striver 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like you're familiar with the 9/11 Commission report. The report acknowledged that there was general intelligence about major attacks planned around that time. I'm sure you already know that the report contains the 8/6/01 briefing memo to Bush, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". The report also accuses the intelligence agencies and law enforcement of failing to connect the dots in time. New Yorkers were probably referring to the intelligence failures when they answered "yes" to this extremely general question. You have no basis for assuming that New Yorkers believe in wild conspiracy theories, based on the wording of the question. Rhobite 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The report say they " to connect the dots in time", while people belive they "they consciously failed to act". It is a BIG difference between "not havin time" and "consciously failing". --Striver 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where has James Bamford denied that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? I've read a number of articles after doing a google search  and failed to find Bamford making the claim that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. patsw 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found him in a wikipedia article. I read a bit about him, and i agree that he is a bit of a grey area, he only belived that the event was used as a pretext to attack Iraq, and that they decided to attack Iraq even while the pentagon was burning. Never mind him, forget James Bamford, my point still stands even without James Bamford and the zogby poll. --Striver 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently an FBI agent in Phoenix knew one bit of info, another agent in Minneapolis had another piece of info, maybe some at the CIA had other info... but the government failed to coordinate the intelligence and connect the dots. This is verifiable and mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't know how Zogby worded the question, but this is what respondents were very likely referring to. To take that poll and say that half of New Yorkers do not think Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, is gross misrepresentation of the poll results. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont buy "likely ", "likely" is original research. Official theory: "not enogh time". Zogby answer: "consciously failed". Not even close to eachoter. --Striver 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Without knowing exactly what question respondents were asked and how it was worded, we can't imply anything from the poll. We don't know 100% what question they were responding to and how it was worded. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion polls always report the exact wording of the question. This question asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". Rhobite 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is geting to a sidetracked. I dont care what they belived they answered. My claim stands even if we totaly disregard the zogby poll. --Striver 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me help you understand the difference between a discussion board and editing the Wikipedia:
 * You can say whatever you want on a discussion board.
 * Here, your claims -- that is the content that you want to add -- need to backed up simultaneously by verifiable information. (i.e. what Bamford claims vs. what Striver claims Bamford claims)
 * Arguing is not editing.
 * Vagueness with respect to the claim regarding Bamford and the Zogby poll isn't moving consensus to your position. If you had completely and concisely presented what Bamford claims with a link for verification and the text of Zogby question with a verifiable link, you would have at least gained my interest because the editing focus would shift from your claims, to what Bamford claims and what Zogby polled.  It's not about you. It's all about the primary and secondary source material presented to the editors. patsw 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bamford claim was vague, and a misstake to include it. It detracted from my credibility. The zogby poll is first hand verifiable. It asked whether some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". 

The answer was a 40-50 "yes" to that. Some tried to original research it to meaning something else than "they consciously failed to act" wheupon i stated that im not here to speculated what they could mean, im only intrested in the obvious statement. Further, i say that my point stands even if the two most ambigues evidence i brought are removed.

Dont bother with those two, it diverts the discussion from what i intended: To change the contains of this aritcle based on stating that the other views are not to be ignored. The other sources i brought are sufficient to support my claim, even withouth those two --Striver 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I brought 16 points. Two are criticized. 14 remain uncriticized. --Striver 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regroup
I readd my statment:


 * You are breaking NPOV by claimin a theory that is disputed by all of the above to be factual! --Striver 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate my statement, then: Rather than tagging the article again and again, please point out specific instances where you feel the text passes judgment inappropriately. I don't agree that the conspiracy allegations (and accusers) are reputable enough to be mentioned anywhere outside of the CT section. There is no reason to allude to these theories by watering down every sentence in the article. The official account, news reports, the overwhelming majority of scientists, first-person reports, phone calls from the planes, and the international community all support the theory that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers were responsible for the attacks. A very small group of people, most with no formal training in the scientific areas which they discuss, believe the U.S. government murdered thousands of its own citizens and somehow concealed this conspiracy from the public. Their theories are covered in the proper areas. Please read the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV for more information about why these people are not granted equal placement in this article. Rhobite 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i read it:


 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.


 * From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

This means that if i can "easyly name prominent adherents", this view is "a viewpoint...held by a significant minority" and NOT by "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"

Lets see:


 * David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton
 * Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat and emeritus English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
 * Michael Meacher UK Minister of Environment
 * Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
 * Andreas von Bülow is a former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service and former Minister for Research and Technology in the cabinet of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and for 25 years an SPD member of the German parliament

Yes, it was fairly easy to find a:
 * chief prosecutor
 * Canadian diplomat
 * Professor at the University
 * Minister of Environment
 * economist
 * assistant defense minister

and more...

Thus: it "is held by a significant minority". Thus our view is a valid reason to not state the other view as factual.

--Striver 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As is now, our theory is treated as a "tiny-minority", while it in fact is a "significant minority" view. --Striver 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They are a but a small number when compared to the thousands of researchers, investigators, engineers and specialists that were at ground zero and have examined the crash sites at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. Three of the ones you point out had no accessiblility to any of the evidence directly...they aren't even U.S. citizens. Does the group have even one expert on controlled demolition? Nope.--MONGO 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. Even if they never left their houses, my argument stands: The view is held by a "significant minority", and not a "tiny minority".--Striver 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a google search for David Schippers and failed to find Schippers making the claim that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. patsw 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents six weeks earlier which included the dates and targets of the attacks. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls. 


 * []


 * I can't find anything on David Schippers. It's uncited in the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11, and I've marked it as needing citation. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Try this, they are talking about Pearl Haribor, Oklahoma city bombing and every other thing that is usualy refered to as nut case theories:


 * DS: ....in Oklahoma City and, frankly, when I first heard the information, I just poo-pooed it, as did everybody else - they thought here comes another one of those crazy conspiracy theories, you know...

www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used

If you want the actual tape, i can try to find it, i have heard it several times.

Ask yourself: Why would David Schipperes talk to Alex Jones in the first place? --Striver 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actauly, the Wikipedia article got it wrong, he never said six weeks, but the transcripts stand, DS support several "nut case theories" --Striver 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, are we talking about the same Alex Jones? The Illuminati-Freemasonry-Tri-Lateralists are gonna get us Alex Jones? Morton devonshire 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, David Schippers shares many of Alex Jones views. Ask yourself: Why would DS agree with Alex Jones that there was Iraqi involvment in the Oklahoma City bombing? --Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Download the 9-11: The Road to Tyranny for free, its legal, and listen to the DS-AJ talk. Its on 57 miuntes 50second. --Striver 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would we do that? I am wondering if a single person or advocate such as yourself that there has been a coverup, a controlled demolition or any of these other conspiracy theories has even one thing that proves their allegations are factual. They offer zero proof of anything.--MONGO 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not true, it only proves that you know nothing about other views.--Striver 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More on POV

 * By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."


 * When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.

WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation

--Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here, a site of scholars sayin the USA governments is lying about 9/11 --Striver 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

among them:


 * Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions

Is he also a nut-case? --Striver 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Who cares...maybe he has a political agenda, or maybe he has been mislead by conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, fact stands: He does not belive in the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and is a part of a significant minority, that happen to include me. This article is POV since it dissregards that. --Striver 13:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are just loud...that doesn't mean they are numerous...whenever someone has something to say without any substance to back it up, they usually have to be loud to get anyone to pay attention to them. Interestingly, I have looked through their websites with an open mind and I found not one shred of proof that there was a coverup, a conspiracy or controlled demolition. All they provide is opinion.--MONGO 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your claim "without any substance to back it up" is simply false. We already know that you do not share our view, you do not need to reiterate that, we already know that you do not view our arguments as convincing. I find it offesive that you claim we base our view on nothing, just yelling for fun and to get attention. You not accepting our view does not result in Wikipedia presenting your view as factual --Striver 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And just to give a simple evidence of control demolition: Building seven, and Harry addminting they "pull it". But im not here to talk about what is the truth or not, im here to edit Wikipedia in a NPOV manner. --Striver 13:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we addressed building 7 before and the misrepresentation of the "pull it" quote. Do you have proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is Harry? Honestly, enough about what I believe, or what the other editors believe, or what you believe.  Please, present the evidence for making a change to the article. 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Larry Silverstein. I do not need to present a single shreed of evidence. I only need to establish that a significan minority contests this theory. And i have done that. --Striver 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming the Larry Silverstein believes that bin Laden did not bear responsbility for the 9/11 attacks? If so, where did Silverstein express this belief? patsw 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, i personaly belive that larry sliped and didnt follow the official coverup story when addmiting that they blew up building seven. But that is not really relevant, im not here to convince anyone of anything, only to make sure that Wikipeida policy is followed, something that is not done right now, to the loss of my point of view. --Striver 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary or secondary sources presenting verifiable evidence that bin Laden did not bear responsibility for 9/11
Please, no meta-discussion in this section. patsw 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No evidence needed
I can get you a list of evidence, but there is no reason. I am not here to convince you that other theories are credible, or that the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is false. The truth it totaly irrelevant to my claim. My claim is: A significant minority is contesting the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and hence is Wikipedia not to present the Bin Laden conspiracy theory as factual, no mater who is right. Wikipeida does not care for the truth.

This demand can not be contested.

--Striver 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does care for the truth...the people you mention are but an insignificant minority.--MONGO 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, you are misstaken. Wikiepedia does not care for truth, and it is not a "insignificant minority", its a "significant minority". Wikipedia states the criteria for being a significant minority as such:
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;


 * And you know what? I havent even started with all the middle eastern people that belive its a Zionist conspiracy. Now, that deffinitly makes it a "significant minority", if not totaly removing it from the "minority" section. --Striver 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do they have proof of a coverup or of controlled demolition? There must be a million people that believe in UFO's too....and not one piece of fact to back up that belief.--MONGO 14:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have lots of evidence that we belive disproves the Bin Laden theory, but that is irrelevant, im not going to talk about that. Wikipedia does care for trying to determine who "is right", only that nothing is claimed as factual if it is dispute. --Striver 14:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A significant minority in the US do not believe in evolution, including several academics, such as William Dembski. Yet the only mention it gets is under Scientific and Religious controversy. I don't see any call for a Conspiracy of Evolution article. --Mmx1 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that is why the article is in a intense debate. Look at the talk page, there are intense debates of why the article proclaims the theory to be factual. However, im don't know anything about that topic, and i don't really care. I care about Wikipedia policies, not what some other article is or is not doing right. As for Conspiracy of Evolution, nobody is claiming there is any such conspiracy, while everyone is claiming the is some sort of conspircay regarding this event. --Striver 14:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Try 9/11 conspiracy theories. Everyone is NOT claiming that there was some sort of conspiracy on 9/11....only an indistinct extreme fringe minority that have zero evidence of anything that would fit the definition of proof.--MONGO 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Get real mongo, do you even know what the word "conpiracy" means? Ill quote this article as it is now:
 * The nineteen conspiring hijackers who carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, 

--Striver 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought we had agreed, Striver, that a conspiracy isn't a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contested
So, is my claim proven correct? I claim the following three points:

1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the Bin Laden theory is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.

2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the Bin Laden theory.

3) The Bin Laden theory is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.

Is any of this three statments are contested? If not, i will prepare to make changes. --Striver 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen people speaking up in support of your poistion. Clearly there is no concensus for the changes you want to make. Tom Harrison Talk 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I guess i need to continue talking. --Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "significant minority" is the grey area here. With regard to the folks you named - their greatest claim to notability are the claims they're making and their association with SFTT. That's a circular argument.--Mmx1 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, that is not true. I have mentioned people that are notable in themselve, not withstanding their view on 9/11. ill list a few of them again:


 * A Professor of philosophy
 * The former chief economist of George W. Bush
 * A Professor of Physics
 * A Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
 * The former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry
 * A former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
 * A United States House of Representatives Congresswoman

That is a *short* list of people notable in themself. HOWEVER! Let me remined you that the wiki policy is NOT to find people that are notable in themsleve for the view to be considered "significant minority", it is enough that it is easy to find proponets of the view. And for that, i need not go longer than Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Michael Rivero. With that, i state that i have provided much more evidence than necesary to prove that i hold a "significant minority" view. --Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were to add this to Talk:Evolution what would you think?
 * 1) Wikipedia policies forbid that the theory of evolution is stated as factual as long as a "significant minority" contest it.


 * 2) There is a "significant minority" contesting the theory of evolution.


 * 3) The theory of evolution is not to be presented as factual in Wikiepdia.
 * I would think that someone is cherrypicking Wikipedia rules in order to inject a non-NPOV bias into an article that is held by the vast majority of interested parties to be factual.
 * I think the current structure of September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sense and provides both sides, including the minority, with a voice. Not only that, but it's a Wikipedia precedence, as you can see with other articles such as Apollo 11 / Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy.

-Quasipalm 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i belive that Wikipolicy is very clear that "theory of evolution" should not be presented as factual. I think many of the problems they face on that article is that they have merged "Macro Evolution" with "Micro Evolution". The second is not contested, and can be presented as a fact, but a "significant minority" is contesting "Macro Evolution". The correct thing to do is to split the Evolution article into Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.

I agree that September 11, 2001 attacks / 9/11 conspiracy theories makes sence, one article for the facts, another one for the theory. I am not contesting that. What i am contesting is that a theory contested by a "significant minority" is presented as factual, and that goes against core principles of Wikiepdia WP:NPOV.

As for the Apollo 11 / Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, that is unfair since there is no "significant minority" for that theis, and certainly not a list of this kind:
 * A Professor of philosophy
 * The former chief economist of George W. Bush
 * A Professor of Physics
 * A Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
 * The former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry
 * A former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
 * A United States House of Representatives Congresswoman

As for Evolution / Creation-evolution controversy, i mentioned it above.

In other words: "Apollo moon landing hoax" is not comparable, and Evolution is filled with POV talks in the talk page, so that is no ideal solution to point to. I await your answer--Striver 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the contesting and start the presenting

 * Please do not appeal to the editing consensus on other articles (or your characterization of it), this article is unique for several reasons. I still don't know who holds this significant minority view, namely that bin Laden bears no responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.  Striver, first on your list was James Bamford but you conceded he was a mistake, then you named David Schippers, but he was merely critical, as were hundreds of others were in government and law enforcement, that the FBI failed to stop the attacks but could have.  This is not the same thing as a claim that bin Laden bears no responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.  There are innumerable critics of the failure of persons and organizations to prevent the attacks.


 * You have not presented a list of citations of who believes what as a significant minority. It's not enough to say they disagree with the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.  We write articles about what people claim, not what they reject.  Verifiable evidence separates the crank from the investigator.  If there's a coherent alternative explanation for what happened on 9/11 held by a siginifcant minorty, I'm paying attention.  Please try to get past the personal crusade for truth and present the coherent alternative explanation of the 9/11 attacks and who adheres to it. Be specific. patsw 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are misstaken. I am not here to say what happpened. I am saying that a contested view is presented as factual, and that is POV. I have provided ample proof of the theory being rejected by a "significant minority". My aim right now is very simple: Stop claiming the Bin Laden conspiracy theory is factual, since it is contested by a "significant minority".

I do not need to give a alternative theory for that. In fact, that would weeken my position, people would start attacking it, and i would need to start defending it, instead of focusing on the main issue. The simple rejection of the theory as factual is enough for Wikipedia to not claim it as factual.

Now, it happens that i do have a alternative theory, but i have no need to bring that up. It would just side track me. I keep it simple, and nobody can refute me as long as i do that. --Striver 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, James Bamford was a misstake. But David Schippers is much more that "merely critical", he is stating things that are generaly labeled with the pejorative "conspiracy theories", such as US having foreknowledge of pearl Harbor, and Irakir elit guard being involved in the Oklahoma city bombing. Why dont you dissprove these guys saying Bush did it?
 * A Professor of philosophy
 * The former chief economist of George W. Bush
 * A Professor of Physics
 * A Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
 * The former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry
 * A former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
 * Right....a narc for 5 years who got fired because he claimed to have discovered a conspiracy involving CIA running drugs. Now works, not surpisingly, as conspiracy theorist (or if you prefer, conspiracy truthist)--Mmx1 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A United States House of Representatives Congresswoman

--Striver 02:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your massage again. Please tell me if you feel i did not understand you. --Striver 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They are entitled to their opinions but that doesn't mean they represent anything other than a extreme fringe minority and they won't believe that Bin Laden was behind the attacks because that would contradict their opinion that there has been a government coverup. They have yet to prove there has been a government coverup, so it matters not what they think about Bin Laden's imvolvement.--MONGO 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This statement of yours "that doesn't mean they represent anything other than a extreme fringe minority" is false by Wikipedia standards and policy, as i have demostrated above. Please do not waste both our time by repeating what is proven false. "they won't believe that Bin Laden was behind the attacks because that would contradict their opinion that there has been a government coverup" is your original research, and false, probably because you dont know enogh of thouse people. But it is irrelevant why they contest it, wikipedia policies is totaly unintreted in their motives. It only cares if it exist, an if they are a significant minority, wich i have proven they are, by wikipedia standards. "They have yet to prove there has been a government coverup, so it matters not what they think about Bin Laden's imvolvement" is false. They do not need to prove anything, only reject the version in order for it to be not represented as factual --Striver 11:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I know about "those people" is that not one of them has anything other than their own opinions either. They haven't proven there was a government coverup, or controlled demolition or anything in the least. You have proven zero except to try and make everyone here think that a small minority of self proclaimed experts constitute more than an extreme fringe minority.--MONGO 11:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alrigh, now i know that you do not want to listen. So i will not waste my time trying to reach you. For everybody else:


 * They have their own proves, it is ridiculos to belive that a United States House of Representatives Congresswoman, a Professor of Physics, the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the former chief economist of George W. Bush would hold such a controversial view witout evidence. The only thing is that Mongo is not compeled by the evidence, and in fact prefers to denie they are evidence in the first place. But in either case, Wikipeida does not care about that, it only cares about if they reject the Bin Laden theory or not, and they do. Wikipedia does not demand them to come up with a alternative theory in order for their rejection to be "valid".


 * Further, as i have quoted above, only the four people i have named here is enough for wikipedia to consider the rejection of the Bin Laden theory to be contested by a "Significant minority", and hence to be grounds for not stating the Bin Laden theroy as factual. Now, Mongo refuses to acknowledge this, and claims that they are only a "extreme fringe minority". For everyone else, here is the actual Wikipedia policy:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.


 * What mongo is trying to do, is to claim that the group is a "extremely small", while in fact it is a "significant minority", since they fullfill the criteria "it should be easy to name prominent adherents". --Striver 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cheese Stands Alone
There seems to be no consensus for Striver's particular point here, except his own, so let's consider the matter decided. Stive-man -- admire your determination, but save your powder for another day. Peace out. Morton devonshire 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i know that people are not agreeing with me, they are offering all kinds of explenations and counter arguements that are not valid, such as demanding that i give evidence and other things that wikipedia policies do not oblige me to offer. I have Wikipolicy on my side, and people will eventualy see that. Thanks for your comment.--Striver 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't think that there is a Wikipedia policy which requires statements to be backed up with evidence? Please read Verifiability. Rhobite 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutly no such demand, Wikipedia does not care the very least in the truth or deman any kind of evidence from people. Verifiability only demands that what we say is sourced by people, and nothing more, nothing about those people being right or having prove or not being nuts. If half the world says the world does not exist, then wikipeida will not claim that as factual. Anyway, i do not want the article to state anything as factual, rather the opposite, that it stops stating contested theories as factual. --Striver 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OBL was the mastermind behind 9/11...he even admitted to this. There is no theory as you may wish to think.--MONGO 11:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. We are not discussing evidence, we are discussing amount of people rejecting the theory. Further, i contest he admitted it, but that is not relevant to this discussion.--Striver 12:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearification
I am NOT here to prove or promote any theory, theis or anything at all.

I AM here to state that the Bin Laden theory is not to be stated as factual.

--Striver 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the best thing to do is go and add this information to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you intentionaly missunderstanding what i am sayin? Read what i wrote again. And dont you insult me by clapping me on the head and saying pejorative things like that! --Striver 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So?
Anyone more having a vaild counterarguement?

Anyone else contesting that a "significant minority", according to wikiepdia standarts, is rejecting the Bin Laden theory? --Striver 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the question is not 'Is anyone contesting the idea?' but 'Is anyone but you supporting it?' Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As i see it, i am quoting WP official policies, and i am delivering exactly what it demands from me.

Basicly: I have right.

Basicly: You dont like it. You hate it. You give non-relevant arguements against it.

So, can i have a relevant argument?

Do not give me the following, since it has been proven irrelevant or false:
 * The Bin Laden theory is factual.
 * There is no proof for other theories.
 * Only a insignificant and small minority reject the Bin Laden theory.
 * I need to give proof for a alternative theory.

And such. I dont need to prove anyting. I only need to establish that a significant minority, in Wikipeida standards, reject it, and i have done that.

The truth is:


 * A significant minority, according to Wikipedia standards, reject the Bin Laden theory.
 * Wikiepdia is not to claim as factual things that are notably contested.

You dont like it. You seem to argue that if you stop answering me, or keep repreating irrelevant arguments, ill get tired and go away. That is not going to happen. --Striver 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And for your benefit, i repreat a short list of people rejecting the theory:


 * A Professor of philosophy
 * The former chief economist of George W. Bush
 * A Professor of Physics
 * A Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
 * The former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry
 * A former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
 * A United States House of Representatives Congresswoman

--Striver 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "...since it has been proven irrelevant or false..." Proven to who? Not to me; I've read your arguments, and find them unconvincing. You have read the other editor's arguments, and you find them unconvinving. I see no point in each of us repeating our positions. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a siginficant minority view at all, but a set of views:
 * Controlled demolition: Robert Bowman (the colonel), David Griffin (the philosopher), Steven Jones (the physicist), Morgan Reynolds (the economist)
 * US Agents, not al Qaeda, highjacked the aircraft: Andreas von Bülow (the German politician), Michael Rupert (ex-LAPD)
 * Not indicating any view but skepticism of the majority view: McKinney (the American politician)


 * They are incorrect but I add they are also not significant. The alternatives to the mainstream theory including the above two are contained in the linked article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which continues to grow in size. I believe the link and discussion in the text conforms this article to having a neutral point of view. patsw 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about their theories. In that sense, the are not a uniform, but they are uniform in that they reject the Bin Laden version, and that is my point.

Im not here to give a theory, im here to state that a significant minorty REJECTS the Bin Laden view. And according to WP:NPOV, that means "easly to find representatives". And i did that.

And i did better than that, i even presented individual that are notable in themselves. It is impossible to claim that *the former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry and the The former chief economist of George W. Bush are insignificant people. And they reject the Bin Laden theory. Hence, it is proven that this article is POV. --Striver 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Morgan Reynolds was the chief economist for the Department of Labor, which is a whole lot different than being George W. Bush's chief economist. This is yet another inaccurate claim which you have made multiple times. Rhobite 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....
I'm suprised to see that so many people belive that conspiracy BS. Hell, someone has even claimed that a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers. Kurt Leyman

You are talking about the nutcases, either patsies or idiots. Let me quote:
 * May 2005 update: Walter's seclusion in Europe did not last long. He (or his publicists) arranged a multi-nation tour of 9/11 skeptics to speak on these issues, arranging for some very good authors and experts along with some hoaxers pushing discredited disinformation. One of the good activists was expelled from the tour for complaining about the presence of a writer for one of America's most widespread neo-Nazi newspapers -- a more sensible strategy would have been to expel the neo-Nazi newspaper from the tour, not a New York City based activist seeking justice for the environmental damage caused to human health by rushing to reopen Wall Street when it was not yet safe to do so.


 * Shortly before Walter's European tour started, reopen911.org was given a substantial overall that massively increased the nuttiness quotient on the site -- the most notorious is now an outrageous suggestion that the Twin Towers were blown up with nukes. Reopen911 now has these claims on its homepage - just in time for the European media to examine what is marketed as the best material from the 9/11 truth movement in the United States.


 * Were the Twin Towers brought down by a Nuclear Detonation?
 * Hunter Thompson Killed over explosives evidence.


 * Mr. Walter should get a special award for the most stupid claim yet uttered by someone pretending to be a 9/11 truth activist for this nonsense. 

--Striver 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact?
If it is proven factual, why dont you go claim the 1 000 000 dollars?--Striver 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think that million dollar prize is winable, you've fallen for a silly media stunt. -Quasipalm 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How come? --Striver 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Public response in the United States
Why is the paragraph about Howard Stern here? This doesn't seem to be public response but an advertisement for Stern. His show was an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' is POV. My local tv station was also an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' but it has no mention.

Should this paragraph be deleted? I could be wrong of course so if I am that is fine. --Skinnyboy401 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, it should be removed, or qualified ('unlikely source of news and comfort to many new yorkers (this would require citation I think). -Quasipalm 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa signatories
The fatwa was jointly issued with Fazlur Rahman (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam rather than the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman. Is this correct? --  max rspct   leave a message  18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * FAS lists one signatory as "Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh." Looks like it is correct. --Mr. Billion 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Or... Actually, that's odd. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam group you mentioned seems to correspond with the name "Shaykh Mir Hamzah," who is "secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan".  The name is "e-Pakistan" instead of "e-Islam," but it looks like the same group.  Anyway (assuming you're talking about the 1998 fatwa) the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman can't be a signatory to the 1998 document, since he died in 1988. The "Fazlur Rahman" listed on FAS's copy of the fatwa was apparently Bangladeshi.  Confusing.  Maybe we're not talking about the same fatwa after all.  --Mr. Billion 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article is still pov.

And by the way, read this:
 * On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.--Striver 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You said that you were going to drop the issue of the poll above. Did you change your mind? Rhobite 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I dropped it since i didnt want my main point being diverted into a disscusion about what they meant. I reposted it since i now have the complete quote and article.

This article is still POV, it portrays the Bin Laden theory as factual. Read:

"Believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:
 * Total: True: 18%, Not true: 61%
 * Pakistan: True: 4%, Not true: 86%

Source: USAToday

Now, dont tell me that 86% of Pakistan is a insignicant minorty. --Striver 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So, anyone that want to argue that the article is is NPOV? Majority in the middle east outright reject Arab involvment, S9/11T reject Bin Ladin theory, half of newyourk belives government is lying... c'mon, people, its imposible to say all of those are insignificant! --Striver 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, the opinion poll should be covered in Wikipedia. How about we add it to World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks or Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks? However it doesn't merit changing the text of this article to say that the 9/11 commission report is "only a theory". We don't make factual determinations based on opinion polls. Rhobite 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no position on the articles you mentioned. I try to focus on one single issue here: The article presenting the Bin Laden theory as factual is pov, since it is notably diputed, to say the least. --Striver 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your edit, and i didnt get what this means:
 * "We don't make factual determinations based on opinion polls"

Could you expand on that? --Striver 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Opinion polls are not a substitute for empirical observation and logic. The scientific consensus is that the official account of the 9/11 attacks is factual. We know that the 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Egypt, Lebanon, and UAE. The nonsense about them still being alive is just a case of mistaken identity that the conspiracy theorists refuse to let go of. These are facts, no matter how many Pakistanis you ask. Rhobite 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, that poll was conducted within 6 months of the 9/11 attacks. There was still a lot of uncertainty at that time, especially in Muslim countries. Since then, Bin Laden has tacitly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and the 9/11 commission report has been released. Do you have any more recent polling data? Rhobite 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A significant number of doubters means you mention that a significant number doubt it. It doesn't mean you change it to a theory unless you have facts saying otherwise. --Mmx1 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we that reject the Bin Laden theory do not regard what you call "evidence" as convincing. But anyhow, Wikipedia does not care for facts, truth and such. Not the least. from WP:NPOV
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. 

--Striver 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

also from WP:NPOV: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. The "Bin Laden Theory", as you call it, is factual. Debate on this page has not negated that. The doubters have nothing consistent to offer (if it did you would be offering it instead of asserting "so many people believe X is false, hence we must state it as an opinion". --Mmx1 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV also states that we needn't treat pseudoscientific theories and scientific facts as just "two different opinions". That's essentially what we are dealing with here. A majority of the people on this planet probably believe in creation stories, yet evolution, which is a featured article, correctly treats creation stories as myth, rather than "another explanation". The fact that: a great many Pakistani villagers are convinced that "The Jews did 9/11"; that a former economist at the Department of Labor believes that no planes ever struck the twin towers but rather that holographic images were projected to create this illusion; that Scientologists are convinced that the hijackers were brainwashed and programmed to commit the atrocities by a team of psychiatrists; these theories are equivalent to pseudoscience and do not earn equal footing with the "Bin Laden theory". Regardless, Striver is presenting these theories as though they represent a single alternative to the Bin Laden explanation. As the three examples above indicate, there a range of conspiracy theories that agree with and depart from the standard explanation in different respects. Some believe that planes struck the towers, some don't. Of those that do, some believe Arab terrorists were on the planes and some don't. Some adamantly reject that Bin Laden was involved, while others believe he was involved but that he is in fact a CIA agent. So Striver, if you want the disputed tag to remain, you need to be clear on which points you think need qualification. Saying "nothing specific, just all of it" won't do. Babajobu 08:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Jesus page and note that it's neutrality is disputed. So is John F. Kennedy assassination. Why shouldn't this page be so? To address Babajobu, I think what I percieve is a majority imposing it's will on a minority. Just because the minority is fractous doesn't mean it's wrong. The minority claim is this: the story as told by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA is largely untrue. Pakistani villagers may express that differently but it's the same claim. Look at Galileo's minority opinion which we now generally agree to have been more correct than the official story of the time. Kaimiddleton 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User Babajobu replied to my above comment in the next section. I reproduce the comment here:
 * Kaimiddleton, as I stated above, you still need to cite specific points in the article with which you disagree. Do you think we should mention that some think Bin Laden is a CIA agent? Do you think we should state that it is a matter of disagreement whether planes ever struck the towers? There is a heterogeneous group of people who take exception to different aspects of the standard 9/11 explanations. Which part of the article do you think needs to be qualified? Unless you cite something specific that you think must be addressed as NPOV, you really can't just slap a tag on it. That's not how use of this tag works. Babajobu 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically: I hold that September 11, 2001 attacks as written holds to the story as widely expressed by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream media outlets in the United States. Under the section "the attacks" it says "The crash in Pennsylvania is believed to have resulted from the hijackers either deliberately crashing the aircraft or losing control of it as they fought with the passengers." the term "believed" while not a complete claim of truth, passively implies truth of a disputed event, with no discussion of alternative theories.  Under Collapse of the World Trade Center it goes into detail about the NIST report: "The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing." I believe this is 100% fact; that the report does say so.
 * What I find is a systematic bias that gives the viewer a perception that elements of the story do not bear questioning. So whereas I agree with most of the factualness of the page (e.g. that NIST was quoted accurately) I disagree with it's overall presentation.  The criticism I have is that questions such as mine and others in the 9/11 Truth Movement are marginalized then framed into seeming implausability.  If the conspiracy theories section were framed otherwise, e.g. as criticisms of the main account, and given more substance within the main article, then I wouldn't have such a problem with giving long coverage to government reports and mainstream media reporting that is widely repeated, even if false. Kaimiddleton 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem for you here is that the vast majority of Reliable sources regard the "alternative explanations" as ludicrous. You are right about Galileo, eventually he was proven right. And I am willing to posit that you may be a modern day Galileo, a speaker of plain truth who encounters only dogged superstition and ignorance. Perhaps future generations will venerate you in the same way we today venerate Galileo...however, that time has not yet arrived. If Wikipedia were being written in the late Middle Ages, we would probably state that the heliocentric model of the solar system was rubbish, because that's what mainstream, reliable sources held, and that's what Wikipedia reports. As I say, in today's (perhaps ignorant) world your beliefs are regarded as conspiracist pseudoscientific crackpottery. I'm not saying that's fair, it's just the case. So unfair as it may be, your beliefs about 9/11 cannot possibly be treated with equal respect in Wikipedia's 9/11 article. Unless you have specific statements in the article that you think are biased, I think we need to remove the POV tag. Regards, Babajobu 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Baba, I agree. Remove the tag.  Morton devonshire 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement
I propose adding "See also 9/11 Truth Movement" under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The fact that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement is not mentioned anywhere on this page. 9/11 conspiracy theories and a movement of people asking questions about the government related but distinct. Furthermore, the movement has been steadily present over time. I see every reason to include a short "see also" in a section that is already very short, and feel that it is of extreme POV to argue otherwise. Kaimiddleton 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither are any of the individual conspiracy theories mentioned here. Avoiding scrutiny by hiding under the phrase "asking questions" doesn't give your group any priority over all the rest. --Mmx1 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That group is but one of dozens of groups that claim they have all the "truth" on the issue. That "movement" can be discussed in more detail in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is not extreme POV to argue otherwise.--MONGO 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have run into some of these people, and at the WTC site, no less. Some may delude themselves into thinking they're seeking the truth, but they are nothing but the 9/11 equivalent of holocaust deniers. -- Cecropia 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To echo MONGO: If none of the individual conspiracy theories are mentioned here I find that fair. However "my group" is not quite an accurate characterization in my view; for instance, the "peace movement" is made of many different groups. My group is the 9/11 truth alliance. There are many researchers or people in the broader public who do not go under that rubrick but consider themselves "members of" or even just "involved in" the "9/11 truth movement". Kaimiddleton 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Prominent mention of "9/11 Truth Movements" as separate from other conspiracy theories is improper and POV. The name "truth" movement begs the question that the truth is other than what has come out publicly, that the members have a better handle on "truth" than others, and that they are all seeking "truth," rather than proposing pet ideas. -- Cecropia 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only argument that I can see as being contradictory to the "official" one is that the U.S. Government had some of the information that they may heave been able to use that may have prevented the attacks....now I say may have, for what I mean is not that there was a Government coverup, but that the intelligence was not digested or divested to the right decision making people that could have possibly made an impact on prevention. I don't blame any administration for this either...it is just the usual beauacracy of government.--MONGO 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been researching and writing for a long time. Every significant (and some non-significant) event seems to have its more-or-less organized doubters. Include in this Flying Saucer enthusiasts (very big in the '50s), holocaust deniers, Shakespeare Authorship doubters, Kennedy assassination revisionists and many others. How many younger Wikipedians are aware that Hitler's fate was not definitvely known outside the Kremlin for about 20 years? Until the Russians finally produced bunker photos, the theories about Hitler's whereabouts were bandied about early and often. Some conspiracies may have elements of truth, but even there it seems that these e;ements are part of the shotgun speculations of theorists. -- Cecropia 21:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I argue that excluding my short phrase is POV as follows: 1) the comment is short. 2) the rest of the article is long and, from my perspective, reflects the "official story" or the story expressed by the mainstream press in great detail. Many other pages are linked to from here, e.g., a list of tenants (victims) of the two towers. Significant members of the victims families, e.g. the jersey girls, are part of the movement of people who continue to ask questions about the official story. The history of their claims is reflected in the article 9/11 Truth Movement whereas their claims themselves are reflected in 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are separate (though linked) subjects, both of notable significance. Compare that with pressing "random article" on wikipidia. Therefore, they deserve mention here in the way I have done. There is nowhere else on this page that "9/11 truth movement" is mentioned. Therefore it is appropriate and non-redundant to mention it here. Kaimiddleton 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you apply this consistently to every other group under 9/11, we end up with a list of alternate theories which is exactly why the section got spun off. --Mmx1 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm claiming that "9/11 truth movement" is a category rather than a title of a group. Perhaps that's arguable.  Again I reference "peace movement" as compared to "unitarians for peace" as a comparision.   Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In the article history comment I see:
 * Mmx1 (pls hash out on talk page; reignite the naming discusssing over "alternativetheories/conspiracy theories,etc" if you must)

Ok: we seem to be on the subject for Framing (communication theory); you might argue I want to frame the discussion one way or another. It is clear to me that framing linked-to material as "conspiracy theories" rather than "9/11 truth movement" weakens my case. So I see your point about the "naming discussion". However, I think it's not a rehash of that discussion because I am viewing the "9/11 truth movement" article as a discussion of the sweep of the movement (when did it start, how many people are involved, what kind of political actions happened), rather than a crystalized summary of specific claims of that movement, as reflected in "9/11 conspiracy theories". Kaimiddleton 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the formatting slightly of how I'm adding reference to the 9/11 truth movement. I have done it as a reference. The next section does it the same way. Since the conspiracy theory is a section under this article it should have more than a cursory mention of what the sub-section talks about. In fact this section should be further fleshed out. By providing a reference to a non-trivial article that already exists it gives the wiki reader a place to go to find out more if they so choose. That's the point, isn't it? Kaimiddleton 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added another sentence:
 * The 9/11 Commission Report has addressed many of these speculations but there continues to be some argument.

I think that's a clear characterization of what's going on. Let me put my viewpoint in a less formal manner: there are conspiracy theories. There was a report. There is still argument. Yes, there is actually an ongoing effort by numerous individuals to ask more questions. NOW: that's simple, accurate information, and in my view to not say that is censorship and POV. Kaimiddleton 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Kaimiddleton, examine the WP:3RR rule if you please. I post this here so all can see you have been informed. If your POV version is reverted and you revert back to your version, you will have violated the 3 revert rule and will be reported as doing so.--MONGO 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So noted. I wouldn't argue this edit if I didn't feel it was worth arguing (c.f.  where I didn't bother as I thought I didn't have as strong a point). Kaimiddleton 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with above comments, that we should not single out one group. And the sentence added, "The 9/11 Commission Report has addressed ..." and "some argument" is inadequate. It's not only the 9/11 commission, but also FEMA, NIST that have refuted the theories, among others.  But, I think that the conspiracy theories can be summarized better.  I've gone ahead done that.  This is as far as we can go in the main article, and all details on the theories, groups... need to go in the subarticles. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I still disagree. The FEMA and NIST reports are considered unfactual or misleading by 9/11 researchers and are documents that the 9/11 truth movement can actually refer to as solid statements by the mainstream that must be held to account.  Hopefully those objections are properly noted in the appropriate pages.
 * Again, in a subsection, some commentary about relevant objections is appropriate. The wiki article should mention them rather than brushing them under the rug.  That was my second point.  My first point, which bears repeating at this juncture, is that there is a movement of people with a history that bears documenting.  I see people continually inserting edits into this page trying to flesh out this section only to be have the comments summarily deleted.  Thus a "Further information: 9/11 Truth Movement" comment is entirely appropriate to me.  I think a lot of people try to add such comments here only to be shunted to the "conspiracy theory" page, the proverbial back of the bus, perhaps.  Then in that section there is continual pressure about how those theories are expressed.
 * To sum up: if there is going to be a section entitled "9/11 conspiracy theories" why not give it some substance instead of just a link to another page?  Or should we just delete the section entirely?  And if so, why?
 * Kaimiddleton 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind a complete deletion of the illusions, but am content to have just a passing mention and a link to a subarticle. Those subarticles are ones I don't usually edit if that matters. It's not like the information isn't available...it's just not on the main page that's all.--MONGO 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearly stating your opinion that you see the conspiracy theories as illusions. Kaimiddleton 16:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Kaimiddleton, as I stated above, you still need to cite specific points in the article with which you disagree. Do you think we should mention that some think Bin Laden is a CIA agent? Do you think we should state that it is a matter of disagreement whether planes ever struck the towers? There is a heterogeneous group of people who take exception to different aspects of the standard 9/11 explanations. Which part of the article do you think needs to be qualified? Unless you cite something specific that you think must be addressed as NPOV, you really can't just slap a tag on it. That's not how use of this tag works. Babajobu 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply in the section above titled 'POV'. Kaimiddleton 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose inclusion of references to the 9/11 Truth Movement in this article. That sort of stuff belongs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Morton devonshire 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that the summary of events that opens the article be sourced to the relevant U.S. government agencies. There is still enough uncertainty about what transpired that I think it is a bit rash to present this stuff as if it were universally accepted. -- HK  07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree here with HK. Good point. Bov 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Identity cards
Am I right in saying that all the hijackers had identity cards? If so, that would seem to be notable and thus worthy of mention in the article. Eiler7 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't believe it would be an important detail either. patsw 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is worthy of inclusion.. or perhaps to the 'planning of the attacks article'? --  max rspct   leave a message  19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Airlines declared bankruptcy
I've removed the text, "five major airlines declared bankruptcy in the four years following the attacks", because I think including this implies a direct cause and effect between the terrorist attacks and the problems in the airline industry. Undoubtedly, the terrorist attacks had a major effect on the airline industry (so, I kept the word "severely"), but even without the attacks, the airlines were in trouble anyway. This is due similar reasons as those impacting General Motors and the Ford Motor Company (e.g. underfunded pensions, health care costs, benefits, ...). Another major reason for the airline stuggles is competition with airlines such as Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have the same structural problems and hasn't experience the same problems since the terrorist attacks. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Who says the airline industry has problems because of 9/11 which continue to the present? Passenger air travel reached the pre-9/11 peaks in July 2004 and has continued to grow since then. Dept. of Transportation) patsw 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)