Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 20

Bin Laden Photos
Is it necessary to have two photos of him included? KyuuA4 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Query about fatality figures: hijackers
A thought just occurred to me. Do the fatality figures for the planes given on this page include the hijackers? 'cos I'm not sure if they should. Either way we should make it clear whether or not they do. Kingal86 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As much as we do not wish to view the hijackers as human - the sad truth is: they are indeed humans. Obviously, they died in the attacks.  As humans who died, that's a fatality.  I went ahead to post crash infoboxes into the individual articles of the 3 out of the 4 airliners.  United 93 already had a box, so I copied that.  In the remaining 3, I added in parentheses a note (incl. # hijackers). KyuuA4 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks. Commas in dates, geographical locations, &c., function as marks of parenthesis. The parenthesis has be closed by a second mark. Think of it like "September 11 (2001) attacks" and the "Arlington (Virginia) Pentagon". We don't leave off ")"—so we don't leave off the comma. Just as we write "Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A., is the location of the Pentagon" and "Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was an important day", we also do this when the multi-word term functions attributively. Associated Press example from late March 2005: "Four suspected Islamist radicals went on trial in Paris on charges that they provided false documents to two Tunisians who posed as journalists and killed the celebrated Afghan resistance hero Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States." — President Lethe 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Strong Oppose There is only one problem with the proposed change: it's not English, the misguided punctuation of some AP transcriber on autopilot to the contrary. But I think this is fatal. Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Pmanderson. I had to read the proposal three or four times just to understand what it was trying to say! -- MisterHand 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose; per above (what you say?) Pacific Coast Highway (blah • typa-typa) 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: September 11, 2001 is a single semantic unit, therefore matching parenthetical commas is irrelevant. Peter Grey 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree* See my entry under "Title is incorrectly punctuated" on this discussion page. It is, admittedly, slightly awkward to punctuate correctly when using "Septebmer 11, 2001," as an adjectival phrase (i.e., modifiying "attacks" in "the September 11, 2001, attacks were devastating"). There are three ways to avoid that awkwardness: (1) rephrase as "the attacks of September 11, 2001, were devastating," which is not much better, (2) write in the European manner as "the 11 September 2001 attacks were devastating," or (3) follow the suggestion below and drop the year, as in "the September 11 attacks were devastating." The third suggestion is probably best. (No one will confuse these attacks with the "September 11 attacks" of some other year.) Otherwise, we should punctuate correctly with two commas. 66.146.213.165 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: compare: Pearl Harbour, attack &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. chocolateboy 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
A change to September 11 attacks would remove this figment; is it not done because of some ambiguity? Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like September 11 attacks. Maurreen 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with this alternative, but I would prefer "9/11 attacks" even more as it is far and away the most common name and has, because of use in media, become widely understood even abroad. Jonathunder 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request:not moved
It is clear that this is not supported, and I agree with the arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What "arguments"? I see arguments here in favor of punctuating correctly (i.e., with commas setting off the year, a parenthetical element), but I haven't seen any "arguments" in favor of sticking one comma in the middle of the sentence for no reason. There are a few general refusals to change, but saying "no, you're wrong" is not an "argument." Find one authoritative source that supports using one comma in this way, and I'll give it up.65.107.70.253 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface at xv: "September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States." Anyone have any reputable counter-examples?65.107.70.253 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also the New York Times, June 24, 2006, A3: "majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey . . . said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs had carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States"; New York Times, June 19, 2006, A11: "The United States said a small cell of Al Qaeda, made up of foreigners, had set up shop in Mogadishu after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were being protected by court leaders"; New York Times, April 30, 2006, 44: "Mr. Deutch also began to require special approval for the use of unsavory characters as agency informants -- a policy suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when officers argued that only terrorists would know of plans for the next attack." I can provide thousands of other examples from authoritative sources. Anyone have any persuasive authorities in favor of using only one comma? I couldn't find any. 65.107.70.253 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream
Read about the mainstream coverage:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm

Its a disgrace for wikipedia that the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews are deleted as non-notable when aljazeera stats:
 * ''Sheen, star of the TV sitcom Two and a Half Men, provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.--Striver 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * oh well, we'll manage somehow. --Golbez 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Media storm" is rather subjective, but it might have a place in one of the secondary articles. I would point out that calling for an independent investigation is nothing unreasonable, only calling for an independent investigation with the presumption of what it might find. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Falling Man
We've got a lot of pictures on this page. Does anybody object to the removal of that one? I know it has meaning and stuff, but it seems excessive for it to be on the page. It's like a shock photo. Graphic and disturbing. I think we should just link to it's page. SkeenaR 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse for examples. --Mmx1 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to be snide, Skeena, but 9/11 was graphic and disturbing. The photo bothers me, too, but I feel pretty strongly that it should stay. Truly, JDoorj a m     Talk 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't feel that strongly that it should be removed. But, just so you know what I mean, in the case of the torture photos I think the graphic imagery is more pertinent to the article. The imagery is the proof, and the imagery is what caused the controversy. I think this is different. I don't think anyone would argue that we need severed limbs or entrails in this article either. SkeenaR 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can replace it with a picture that more accurately covers the tragedy and number of deaths related to 9/11 then I say go for it. This is a famous picture depecting a time period during the event (the jumpers) that should be included in the article. The fact that the picture has its own article is almost enough to retain the picture in the main article. --Mattarata 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. SkeenaR 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may recall that there were two brothers who filmed inside one of the lobbies. In that footage, which was broadcast on the CBS network during prime time in 2002, there are the regular sounds of many bodies regularly crashing through a glass atrium. So a photo of one person falling may misrepresent the actual event on the low side. I was sort of surprised that the man could not be identified for us, which would help make the events more real.

Another one
Here guys, another one you can insult: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606latestcelebrity.htm]--Striver 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Challenging misinformation does not require insults. Peter Grey 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate what are the credentials of this musician to make opinions about engineering. did he study in architecture or engineering at which university? Mieciu K 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical problem
There is an obvious mathematical error under the first subheading ("The attacks"). The fatality total is listed as 2986, made up of the sums of 265, 2595, and 125. The problem is pretty clear: 265 + 2595 + 125 = 2985, not 2986.

I attempted to fix this error by adding one to the plane total (I based the 266 number on the fatality table in the "fatalities" section of the entry), but another editor erased my correction and changed the "fatalities" section to reflect a 265 number. I do not dispute this change, as it was cited and appears to be correct. However, because the 2986 number was likely based on the faulty flight fatalities, I am going to revise the total casualty number down by one.

I have not provided a source for the 2985 number because, frankly, sources conflict. I have begun to look for a reliable source for fatality numbers, and if I find a good one I will revise all the numbers to reflect it. However, given that we have conflicting sources, I think it makes sense to make the Wiki entry internally consistent. Right now there is a blatant mathematical error on the page, which is a major problem. If anyone does not like my revision, please feel free to fix it--but re-creating an obvious math error on a major wiki page by reverting to the old version is NOT a "fix." We should not have a total that is different from the sum of its supposed parts.
 * Looks like I forgot to sign my entry. I originally posted this the evening of June 28, 2006. SharkAttack 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to find sources to reference all the figures, with the most recent source being a CNN article (also reported in other media outlets) from October 2003. I haven't found anything more recent, though it's possible that the figures have been revised since then. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon
Guys, look what Alex linked to: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm]. Lately, Alex have leand more and more to including material that supports that the pentagon was hit by a plane. I find the arguements compelling. I have never been to sure regarding either version, and i still have unanswered questions regarding Pentagon, but if asked, i now support that it was hit by a plance. --Striver 13:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a blog. What you think/your own theories are original research. And we do not add original research to wikipedia. Mieciu K 01:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Although original research and opinons aren't allowed, you have to develop and hold your own opinions about the way a subject is presented in order to improve an article. So if you think other theories should be covered, then you must find outside research that supports your opinion, such as the Zogby poll mentioned above that find 42% believe the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up. Incidentally, the www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm animate video] is one of the best and most thorough examples what the 9/11 Commission says happened to the jet that hit the Pentagon.
 * Wow, an animated movie with pictures of unknown origin, you really shook my world. And as for the polls: most people living on our planet belive in God, but that is no proof that God exists. Mieciu K 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The video doesn't show a Boeing 757. This picture also doesn't show damage that would be caused by a Boeing 757. It's worth noting that some windows are not broken. Engineers at Purdue produced a simulation of the theory behind the Pentagon attacks.

External Link
I want to add...

http://www.911.colleenmcgarry.com

Can I get permission?

I want to add...

http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/WarOnTerror.shtml#Sept11

Can I get permission?


 * You don't really need permission: be bold! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of links. What makes this website significant that we should add a link to this website? Mieciu K 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility

 * Widely disputed? No, strongly disputed by a small, dedicated group of propagandists relying on disreputable sources.  There is no dispute among reports by mainstream, verifiable media sources about who is responsible: Osama Bin Laden.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

Morton/Matt, I've moved your comment here, as you inserted it in the middle of my comment. Now my reaction: mainstream reports are citing the government view, without much of a dispute. So far I agree. This makes the media sources verifiable, but not necessarily trustworthy. About the propagandists: you are entitled to your view about this. The LA conference end of June however made headlines in the major newspapers here in Holland, I think mainly because of the size of the conference (1200 participants). It is not just a few internet freaks and paranoid people, but it also includes former ministers Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow so I maintain my view that the dispute is not only strong, but also wide. And this means that wikipedia must be very careful in presenting the facts, and not beliefs as if they were facts. The mainstream view is a belief as much as the "propagandists'" view. That's my opinion. &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The media may adopt the same narrative as the US Government, but not necessarily by blind repetition - it may be that they've independently reached similar conclusions. It does not make them absolutely trustworthy, but it does mean your personal scepticism is unfounded. In theory, it's great that people question the account, and explore other possibilities; however, no evidence challenging the mainstream story has yet been found. Peter Grey 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * X, I don't know if you understand how the American media works -- the press does not stand there waiting for the Government to hand them news stories. Some information is fed through official channels, but it's an ultra-competitive marketplace -- with competition even among federal agencies and even intra-agency -- on the source side, if there is a story to be leaked, and you can gain personally or your agency can gain from leaking it, then it's often leaked.  There is no such thing as monolithic thinking in the American psyche -- we thrive on feathering our own nests, and we can be counted upon to do just that.  On the journalist side, we have the same ultra-competitiveness operating, with journalists and news organizations striving to beat the other side to the story, or often, to embarass other news organizations by revealing how the other organization "got it wrong".  Even with consolidation and mega-media-giants, and maybe especially because, there are immense competitive pressures to out-do the other shops and "get to the real truth."  Every J-School grad dreams of the day he will find his Deep Throat and expose another Watergate -- Abscam, Iran-Contra, Enron, et al.  The American Experience is replete with infamous examples of journalists "taking down" the rich and powerful -- that's the core of who we are.  That's how we know that the mainstream media account is the truth, and the conspiracy theories are without merit.  Yes, there's room for doubt -- but that doubt operates every day to sharpen the story, not just when conspiracy theorists conjure it.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 
 * I completely agree with Morton on this. In the U.S., there are plenty of independent reporters that are not hampered by the corporate world of mass media, and they have every reason to try for their own personal gain, to find any and all evidence that would contradict the known evidence.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ha ha. Just so long as none of this goes into the article. SkeenaR 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and those independent reporters can be found on the internet, in places like Alternet etc. The big media are owned by a very small group of people, and individual reporters working for those media won't get their stories published if they go against the stream of what the government 'likes'. If people (or a newspaper) publish stories the white house doesn't like, they lose their buddies or contacts in the White house or the other parts of the government, who won't give them their stories any more. This is not to say you can't publish it any more, just that the incentive is very strong not to do it.


 * About the widely suported doubts on the official story, please see this Times Herald story on public opinion split over 9/11 report. More than 40% of Americans believe the 9/11 report is a cover-up. I can guarantee you, this percentage is much more outside of the US. So to say there's no wide support, is an unfounded statement when considering public opinion. And an unfounded statement when looking at the true independents on the internet, those who are unbiased by the big bucks... Sacca 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 911Truth.org sponsored it, the questions may have been leading, but more importantly, it does not distinguish between those believing the report was a cover-up of negligence or political opportunism, and those believing the report was a cover-up of pre-meditated murder and treason. Peter Grey 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it mentions cover-up, so it definately is not a case of political opportunism, no cover-up is needed for that. Cover-up means there is something rotten. But thinking about it: 45 percent of Americans believe there is a conspiracy in the US government on 9-11. Sacca 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article mentions cover-up - there is no indication whether the poll mentioned it or not. Peter Grey 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zogby is reliable pollster. If you dispute that 42% say there is a cover-up, then ask yourself whether the ccover-up topic should be included if only 33% said there was a cover-up. Incidentally, some of the analysis in this section strays quite far from the topic and should probably be included in an area on theories about American journalism.

revert

 * 1) (cur) (last)  15:01, 4 July 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm conspiracy theory; rm promotional link)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 14:51, 4 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - see bin Laden article)

I've re-inserted the fact that the FBI does not accuse bin Laden of 911-involvement. Personally, I presume this can only be so if they too believe the confession-video could be a fake. They would have enough evidence, if he confessed, wouldn't they?

I am not, for the moment, reinserting doubts on the confession video's. Let's leave that for a later stage.

Thanks, &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please consult the Osama bin Laden page and its talk page for this debate, before editing.
 * please do not revert without due explanation on this talk page.
 * The reasons for this is because the links of Osama to the embassy bombings is conclusive, so in order to fully prosecute the hunt for Osama it's best to do so under the best potential for later prosecution. If ever captured alive, they can try him for the embassy bombings, which are prior to 9/11 and for which the evidence is conclusive, whereby, the evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks is less conclusive...but that doesn't mean that the FBI, INTERPOL and other agencies think Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so that needs to be understood.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As to responsibility and documentation, here is an image from and video of the Osama bin Laden confession tape that was found in Jalalabad. Slipgrid

Depressing
It's actually quite depressing that Wikipedia is still not able to present a decent, unbiased, article about 9-11. The bias pervades the whole article, Dick Cheney might have written it himself! It's very proper that this article was taken out of the category of featured articles. Sacca 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is there not any template that can be applied to this article? Widely disputed article for example? Just so that the people who read it are aware?Sacca 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are such tags, and would be properly used here. Actually, it's time the tag went up for sure, because the neutrality is heavily disputed as one can see from reading this talk page. But I'm willing to bet if the tag was placed at the top of the article, it would be removed without explanation. SkeenaR 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, quite funny eh? Put up a tag and it disappears without any explanation. Surely some evil-doers are on the roll here! ;-)


 * But off course, this is not what Wikipedia is for, it really needs this {neutrality} tag.Sacca 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Let's see what happens when I put it back.


 * The disputed neutrality tag is highly appropriate in consideration of (1) a recent Zogby poll that shows that 42% of Americans believe the government is covering up 9/11 (www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231) as well as (2) this very talk page. I issue strong support for the disputed neutrality tag. Thank you.


 * Evidence of a coverup is not evidence of involvement with the conspiracy. --Golbez 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth has nothing to do with how many people believe it. Most Americans do not have the expertise to judge for themselves what really happened. Also remember, the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.144.206 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 August 2006

Some proposal by Xiutwel
Dear Sacca,


 * why did you add
 * on  13:15, 8 July 2006 Sacca  ?
 * Actually, I did not add this image about example. Check it again, it must have been somebody else.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * History comparison indicates you inserted it, but this comparing is prone to bugs, so let's just forget about it. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there are many disputed claims presented as facts. I propose the following solution:
 * make a list of quotes from the article which do so
 * try and reach consensus here on talk that these "facts" are widely disputed
 * try and refrase the presenting of this information in the article in a neutral, encyclopic way.
 * yes, very good ideas.


 * Remember, that a majority of wikipedians takes the government story as either true or mostly true.
 * When I read the talkpage here I would say there's a lot who don't take the government story as true also.


 * From that perspective, it is only logical to dismiss any dispute as "conspiracy theory".
 * And therefore I do not agree with this statement at all. You are talking as if this talk-page does't even exist. take a look and read. this is all written by wikipedians...


 * For practicle purposes, I propose we leave all theorizing and accusations to the separate conspiracy article. However, the facts in this article should be above dispute (for so far as the dispute is founded on traceable evidence or logic).
 * Actually, if you're not going to accuse, you cannot include the '19 terrorists' or 'Al Queda' also. How can you write an article on this without putting in information about who did it?
 * Another funny thing is how can you be against theories and for logic? They go together. theories come from logical thinking. Logical thinking ends up in logical theories, so maybe what you mean is not to include unlogical theories, only logical ones?


 * I would support including the "disputed" tag only after we tried and failed solving things here in good cooperation. &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'disputed' or 'neutrality' tag should be there now, because it is disputed now and it is not neutral now. If that changes in the future, it can be removed. The article as it currently is should currently be labaled as biased. Right now it's just misleading - not indicating the bias of a biased article.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also there's actually no good cooperation here, if tags are removed without concern for the talkpage which indicated this page is HEAVILY in need of a TAG.
 * Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth", but instead is based on verifiable, reliable sources. As such, no 'disputed' tag is needed. If you think mainstream, reliable sources are in error, take it up with them. -Aude ( talk contribs ) 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to say the 9-11 report is reliable? Many sources exist which indicate it is in fact not. You know, professors of physics and other sciences, former ministers, independent journalists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your TV! If those university professors think something is very flawed and biased about the 9-11 report and the mainstream US media, their opinions need to be reflected in the article.


 * The data in this article is very flawed because it is very biased. And there are some controllers here who keep it biased, it's very natural that those do not like to accept their biase-ness. So, even though the neutrality tag is removed very quickly everytime, this artcle badly needs it. Sacca 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you. Blogs and other sites which do not employ objective editorial oversight do not satisfy Wiki standards -- you can't add material from unverifiable and disreputable sources.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

re: Some proposal by Xiutwel

 * 1) I was not as clear as I intended to be. I meant: seen from the standpoint that the White House is bona fide in this, it is logical to dismiss anything else as conspiracy theory. I was not intending to say, that this should be the wikipedia policy on this subject! I am hoping we can find a way to write together a page that satisfies wikipedia criteria according to all wikipedians.
 * 2) My feeling is that 70-90% of wikipedians choose to believe the government point of view, judging from the edits. Just a guess. That leaves a significant minority who think it is possible that the White House mounted a cover-up. As was said earlier:
 * 3) either they're covering up how they distorted the truth about 911 in order to go to war (but this would not be covering up about 911, so this is irrelevant concerning the poll mentioned above)
 * 4) or they're covering up that they were inadequate in preventing bin Laden from doing this
 * 5) or they're covering up they did this themselves and blamed it on bin Laden, or a combination
 * 6) verifiable sources: I would say we can go no further that establish whether some info, whether true or not, was presented in some widely recognized source, such as a newspaper, news program or document report. Absent these, a "conspiracy web page" must do but this is not very helpful since this will be disputed instantly.
 * 7) reputable sources: there aren't any. Period. Not about the guilt behind 911. Since the guilt is being denied by all involved, Bush and bin Laden alike. We should therefore restrain ourselves to summing up who said what and when. The sayings themselves are facts; what is said are not facts but possibilities.
 * 8) I think it is fair to put the tag up now, but it would be better to be the wiser party and first get going with specifying in detail which remarks in the article merit the tag. A general reference to this talk page as a whole is too easy, since theoretically the article might have been adapted according to discussions here on talk.
 * 9) *I just made archive 19 of this talk page, so it definitely will not suffice, just referring to the talk page as a whole. We need to be specific. Let us first reach consensus, that due to the opposing interests, government sources can not be seen as reputable, except for declaring what the government wants to declare.&mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) *I would agree with that. Sacca 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Due to holiday I guess I'll be offline for a month or so. Hope the USA still exists when I return. Best wishes from Holland. &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Proposal to include Molten Metal reference
I think it is clear to everyone involved that this page is highly disputed. That said, I would prefer if we can avoid resorting to adding Disputed Tags to the article - at least until we try harder to gain consensus over how NPOV and Verifiability apply in this case. As a specific example of a disputed fact is the continued exclusion of all reference to mainstream media accounts of Molten Metal sightings at Ground Zero on and after the attacks. For more detail on the Molten Metal discussion, see [] For mainstream source material, see: []

This is a clear example of a Disputed Fact. It is well documented by multiple credible mainstream sources, but has been excluded from Wikipedia because it may not fit the official account of events. It is clearly a violation of NPOV to exclude this notable and verifiable fact: "Molten Metal was observed at the site of Ground Zero for days and weeks after the attacks.

Whether or not you agree that reference to Molten Metal should be included in the article. Does anyone wish to argue the fact that it isn't even disputed? Digiterata 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this is the primary article on this subject, that level of detail might not be appropriate, particularly since . It would also be necessary to explain why it's noteworthy, what it implies about conditions in the building, and, because many conspiracy theory argments include the observation, to point out that it actually contradicts the conspiracy theory scenario and supports the mainstream account (and I suppose the "official" account as well, whatever that is). Peter Grey 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Molten metal is another subject which should be included in the article. If people want to know a lot of detail they can click on the link (Wikipedia uses links) at molten metal at WTC or something like it. Again the previous comment by Peter Grey may be creating more disputes and not solving any; shows just how much the 'disputed' tag is needed (it should have been there ages ago). Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * by the way Peter you didn't tell us yet why detail should not be incorporated into the article. There is a notable emptiness after the words partiularly since... it's almost funny :-) Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right Digiterata, it seems the reference to molten metal is disputed. (Just like the rest of the article and the whole article itself.) It seems Peter Grey has a very different idea about it (it's supportive of the official account - but he doesn't want to mention it strangely enough) than for example me (it's supportive of some of the alternative accounts). The fact that it's not in the article is one of the many instances of the biased-ness of the article, and the fact that you and me want it in but others not is an axample of one of many disputed issues in this article. greetings Sacca 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This main article needs to be concise, written in Summary style. Details on the Collapse of the World Trade Center should go in that article.  And, molten metal is something discussed in context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, so discussion of molten metal should go there. There are many other aspects of 9/11 that are covered in summary style in the main article. -Aude ( talk contribs ) 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean it is also discussed in the alternative theories. That's again very convenient, that anything which is discussed in the alternative theories doesn't have a place in the main article. That's the best way to keep this article biased, for sure! Congratulations, you've found it! Sacca 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the logical place for this kind of detail. Since the molten metal phenomena (there are two - something metallic falling from the building during the fire and hot and/or painted orange metal present at the site after the collapse) are real, documented events, but they are non-notable, not really implying anything beyond a) fire and b) collapse, which are not "disputed". Peter Grey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Molten metal appears when using explosive materials, not in a fire caused by a relatively short burst of large quantities of fuel. The molten metal is one very controversial subject because it points back to the method of controlled demolition which was used to take down the World Trade Center. The molten metal was not only seen dripping out of the building, but also encountered in large quantities in the basement, where there was no fire, but where large explosions are reported (verifiable) to have occurred. Together with the speed with which the WTC collapsed (free fall), it is one of the main indicators which betrays the true cause of the coming down of the WTC. But anyway not to worry, I've decided not to come back here since I don't want to waste any more time going over the same arguments time and time again with a limited group of people only aiming to keep certain data out. Keep it as biased as you want, but please notify me when there's some kind of vote because I'll happily join in that. bye bye for now... Sacca 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Molten metal does not imply any of these things; that is one of the leaps of faith the conspiracy theorists use, hoping that the average member of the public will not notice the gap in the argument. Peter Grey 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hijackers
It's interesting that nobody bothers to show any evidence for who the hijackers actualy were. It's even more interesting when you consider that the FBI admited that the hijackers were using assumed names and fake IDs. In fact, the 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes. So, who were they, really? If Wikipedia is going to say that these men were "Affiliated with Al-Quieda" then it damm well better back that up with some evidence. So far, all I see in this regard is a lot of alegations and not much evidence. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_175.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/U175pass.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are against the wikipedia policy and it is considered a form of vandalism. DO not post them here. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note -- you don't appear to be signed in as that user . A bit laborious, I know, but please sign in so that we can all be sure who's who, eh? :) Luna Santin 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section
To keep the lead section concise, I have removed the following: I don't think it's necessary to add what was in parentheses. For example, simply saying the Pentagon is much more concise way of saying "headquarters of the US military". The part about "crime against humanity" is also too detailed for the intro section (and should be cited). -Aude ( talk contribs ) 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "(targeting random civilians and the heaquarters of the US military and legislature)"
 * The attacks fall under the legal definition for a crime against humanity.


 * Absurd claim of attack as crime against humanity is not even supported by the cite. Crimes against humanity are on the scale of genocide as defined by the UN and international law.  Please, the attack was bad enough without this hysterical hyperbole. --Cberlet 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Devil's advocate: When you have well-established editors labeling the killing of 23 people or 1 as "crime against humanity", why does the killing of 3000 not count? Because the U.S. isn't the aggressor? --Mmx1 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not be snide given the horror of the terrorist attack on 9/11. OK?
 * Why? Because the killing of 3,000 compared to the population of the United States does not approach the scale of genocide, either historically or according to the UN definition. Because there is no cite to a reputable published source making the claim.  Because the only definition offered here is to an internal Wikipedia link. Because it is therefore uncited Original Research.--Cberlet 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Security council condemnation; repeatedly those that made comments declared the event as a crime against humanity, or similar along those lines. Kofi Annan "A terrorist attack on one country was an attack on humanity as a whole" I concur that the event wasn't genocide, but I disagree that ir wasn't a crime against humanity. If others want to post that the U.S. has commited a crime against humainity on other articles, that is not my concern, so long as it is sourced. This article is about the events of 9/11.--MONGO 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let's roll"
It's not original research but common knowledge. Is there a dispute regarding The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? patsw 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
We now have an infobox... on terrorist attacks? Oy vey. Is this *really* needed? --Golbez 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is bad tasty.--Pokipsy76 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree they are so ugly and plus the official death toll is 2,986 not 2,976!! Litte Spike 2:37am EST, July 15th, 2006

Terrorism
'Terrorism' is a highly subjective term, and I do not think it has a place in a NPOV article unless it is in a quote attributed to a specific person. Therefore, could the presumed attackers be described as 'Islamic militants' instead?

I realise this is an emotional subject for many of you, but that is no reason to throw away objectivity. Damburger 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrorism has an objective meaning, and describes the actions of the "Islamic militants" quite clearly and unambiguously. It is a statement of fact, not a pejorative. Levi P. 04:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From Merriam-Webster
 * terrorism
 * Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
 * Function: noun
 * the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
 * Did these people systematically use terror especially as a means of coercion? Yes. Ergo the terrorist label.--Squiggyfm 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The United States systematically used terror as a means of coercion when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet that is not described as an act of terrorism. The fact is, every nation that produces a clear definition of terrorism applies it only to their enemies. It is definitely a POV term, but I won't change it before further discussion here. Damburger 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I would not call the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor terrorism either, as it was perpetrated by one country on another country during a time of world war. We are discussing the attacks of 9/11, during which "islamic militants", not affiliated with any army, hijacked commercial airliners, and crashed them into other civilian targets.  There is a clear difference and it is not subtle.Levi P. 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pentagon is not a civilian target. It is a military target through and through.  The definition of terrorism according to the US Code, at least before 9-11, required that the target be civilian.  As such, folks (such as myself) that continue to use that legal definition are correct in pointing out that the act of crashing a plane into the Pentagon was not, in any way, an act of terrorism.  When people talk about the attacks, they are including the Pentagon, so we ought to refine the story to reflect that.  Bugg42 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to examine the discussion archives where this has come up quite often. The editing consensus for this page before the issuance of the report of National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was that attacks were terrorist in nature and the perpetrators terrorists and since that report was issued it confirmed the judgement of the editors here. The specific objection you raise terrorism is a highly subjective term was thoroughly argued in the past. If you don't bring anything new to the discussion, it will remain as it is. patsw 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Commission you speak of is clearly a POV document. The phrase 'national commision' should tip you off to that. Furthermore, you seem to think my arguments have already been refuted but the article definition of terrorism shows that that is hardly the case for all wikipedians. Please don't let your emotions cloud your judgement.
 * Bear in mind I'm not asking for them to be called "matyrs" or anything - "Islamic militants" is a truly neutral description, as both sides agree its an accurate term form them (although neither side might think its the best term for them).
 * The definition that terrorism has to be specifically performed by a non-state organisation would define every revolutionary movement that used violence as terrorists (when combined with the dictionary definition provided above) yes I doubt the same Americans who think 'terrorist' is not a subjective description of the 9/11 hijackers would consider their own founding fathers to be terrorists. The British certainly did. Damburger 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No they didn't...they were "revolutionaries" to the Bristish, or Yanks or Rebels. Was throwing a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor a terrorist act? We have no proof the terrorists on 9/11 were "Islamic militants". They just happened to have been of the Muslim faith and it is less offesnive to Muslims if we call the actions of the terrorists terrorism than if we call them Islamic militants. I anything, islamofascists would be better since the people who orchestrated the attacks have taken and hijacked Islam for their own interpretations and perversions.--MONGO 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the term terrorist wasn't applied to America revolutionaries, it was because it wasn't in use at the time. 'Rebel' at the time would've conveyed the same notion. As for 'Islamic militants' being an anti-Islam POV, the fact is that these hijackers apparantly conducted their attacks in the name of what they considered Islam.
 * 'Islamofascists' is a term that I haven't really heard outside the US media, and some blogs. I think its more likely to be offensive to Islam than 'Islamic militants' Damburger 08:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, islamofascists it is then.--MONGO 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Islamofascists is POV, I made that clear. Damburger 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

By any definition it would seem that hijacking a commercial airliner is prima facie evidence of terrorism. Levi P. 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't good enough justification for using such a POV term. Cuba domestic flights have been hijacked by people trying to escape the Island, do you consider them terrorists? Castro certainly does. Damburger 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist/terrorism is not a "POV term" when it is used in a factual, non-propagandistic way (i.e. not as an insult). Actually, trying to force the use of vague language and euphemism is a form of POV-pushing. Mirror Vax 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, you’re never going to get a totality of the population to agree on any term. Terrorist is the closest thing we have, as it is a noun for the people who commit acts of terror.  What was 9/11?  An act of terror.  Terrorists is what every major media outlet calls the people who took part in 9/11.  Why is that?  Well, that’s because 9/11 was an act of terror.  If we can’t call those guys terrorists, who can we call terrorists?  Anyone?  Should the word even exist?  ?  The term is a valid term.  It applies to these people.   To Castro, those people leaving Cuba are terrorists.  To us, they aren’t.  The term is applied by the people who have been terrorized, not the other way around.  Now, when Castro sets up a wiki, then we can debate what he calls people.  Squiggyfm 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'until Castro sets up a wiki'? Are you suggesting that because wikipedia was set up by an American it should express a pro-American POV? Its only your opinion that 9/11 was an act of 'terror', because of how subjective a term 'terror' is. Regardless how widespread that opinion is in the US, it isn't a fact. Also, Mirror Vax, my suggestion of 'Islamic militant' isn't vague language or a euphemism, its an adjective and a noun which both sides agree can be applied to an individual. Don't try and shift the burden of proof, its intellectually dishonest. Damburger 08:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is a term which is used worldwide by respectable media outlets and encyclopedias. Your suggestion that only Americans consider 9-11 to be terrorism is false. You're just another eccentric POV-pusher, which this sort of article attracts, and there's no reason why anyone should give your opinion any weight. Mirror Vax 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the term 'terrorism' is widely used by respectable media outlets, then by all means use it when discussing their opinions. I didn't suggest that only Americans consider 9/11 to be terrorism. *I* consider 9/11 to be terrorism, but that shouldn't be reflected in wikipedia. I figured seeing as nearly 5 years have passed it would be a good time to try and put the whole thing into perspective, the responses here indicate I might have been wrong. Damburger 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, 5 years later, and terrorists still did it! Look, it isn't the opinion of the media that terrorists did it...its America.  And its not opinion, at least to the less-than-insane crowd.  We might have to wait another 5 years until we can candy coat 9/11 to make ourselves feel better. Until then, its terrorists, not "freedom fighters" or "Islamofacists" or "men of various Middle-eastern descent".  Squiggyfm 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you consider 9-11 to be terrorism, then you are right, but only by accident, since it's clear that you have no idea what the word means. Mirror Vax 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wanna try the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion? Please tell me what terrorism really means.  Squiggyfm 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above: That definition includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Damburger 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would out every act of war waged under the title of terrorism. Anywho, we're not discussing Hiroshima, or what Castro calls whoever (that was my point above). Squiggyfm 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... but this isn't that page. If you'd like to make a case for that, go to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and argue that it should be included in the article.  Oh, wait, it's already there, in the "Debate over bombings" section, under "Opposition".  JDoorj a m     Talk 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because this isn't that discussion page, doesn't mean the subject can't be bought up here. The fact that the same people demanding the application of a POV term to 9/11 would not consider the nuking of a civilian population to acheive a political aim to be terrorism is very much relevant here. Squiggyfm: Even if it were the opinion of 'America' - which it isn't - then I would draw your attention to the 95% of humans living outside America. Damburger 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not just Americans use the term "terrorism" in reference to 9/11. So does Kofi Annan of the United Nations, as do the news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on...  There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism.  -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm still waiting on a acceptable word to substitute for terrorist or terrorism or terror.
 * 2. In relation to Hiroshima, I can see your point, but you're leaving out the US was in a state of war against Japan. If Fat Man and/or Little Boy were used to achieve a political aim, it was to end the war.  When the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is also a political figure, its hard to separate the two.
 * 3. Audeverde pointed that it is not only America's view that it was terrorism.  Thanks be unto Aude for doing what I was too lazy to do.  Squiggyfm 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The acceptable phrase was 'islamic militants' for reasons I outlined above. 'Hijackers' might be better, or 'al-qaeda operatives'. These are all uncontenious factual descriptions that don't convey a POV.
 * 2. If you don't consider identical acts commited by a state to be terorism, then a better example might be Luis Posada Carriles. He hijacked a jet and killed over 70 people, and is wanted in both Venezuela and Cuba. The US does consider him a terrorist.
 * 3. The countries that squiggyfm mentioned are also western nations - and there the opinion isn't as uniform as you like to beleive. Damburger 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Damburger, Carriles is said to be involved in "numerous violent terrorist plots" in the first sentence of the article. That the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered by some to be terrorism is included in the article about the bombings. There are official definitions of "terrorism" and of "terrorist". 9/11 and those involved fit the respective definitions. JDoorj a m    Talk 07:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'd disagree with those uses of the word as well. I'm here because this is a more important article, and if such changes were made here I would move on to other articles. I've tried to start a more general discussion on the page definition of terrorism but so far nobody has joined it. Damburger 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that people have stopped answering, and I've blown the mentioned objections completely out of the water, can I take that to mean people don't mind the change? Damburger 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Messed Up Article Now
I noticed that some individuals destroyed this site!! The death toll is stated at 3,000, than 2,985, and than 2,976 all in the same article!! Whats up with this Wikipedia? This article is one of the most important ones on Wikipedia at this time and its filled with mis information and in reality the actual official death toll is 2,986!! - Litte Spike 3:46pm EST, July 15th, 2006

final death toll
the death toll on the article does not seem to reflect the downward revision that occured in October of 2003, so I'm going to change it in the article. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * this seems to be a bit more complicated then I thought. It seems most likley that it was the WTC total was reduced, but I'm not sure that all the 40 in question were removed from the trade center total, and simply changeing the grand total would throw off the math. Can any one confirm that it was infact the WTC number that was reduced?
 * I don't know where the figure, 2986, that was there before was obtained from, but doubted its accuracy. I recently tried to source all the figures, and came up with 2976 fom the October 2003 CNN source.  2976 seems to be correct, also substantiated by reference #46.  Now, it's possible that the count has been revised since 2003, but I don't have any such sources. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutra Point of View
WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW FOR THIS PAGE!!

I try to put in the qualifiers and I get a message that says that I'm a vandal.

This page is simply an extension of the mainstream media propaganda.

9/11 was an inside job.

You don't have to say it was but you can't have a fair encyclopedia entry on 9/11 if you don't state both viewpoints SIDE BY SIDE.

Further down the article does have some qualifiers. Good to see!

But they must be througout the article.

This is an example of showing both viewpoints: Some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls from the hijacked flights, though this is disputed as analysis of the voice indicate no panic, and the people couldn’t answer simple, straight questions. They reported that multiple hijackers were aboard each plane. A total of 19 were later identified by the FBI, four on United 93 and five each on the other three flights. Though conspiracy theorists point out that the Arlington county coroner said, “To this day I have not seen one drop of blood, not one.”124.168.86.15, 09:40, July 18, 2006

There already is a page for this. OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE! Did you not ready the numerous debates about this already? Squiggyfm 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Peter Grey 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain Peter, that was sorta ambiguous. Squiggyfm 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...both viewpoints..., where one viewpoint is 9/11 was an inside job. (Not because it's ridiculous, but because there's no evidence.) Peter Grey 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fun to see month after month new editors come here and say how they don't believe the mainstream account, that they tried to edit the article and that they were shut down by the same group of admin. It happened to me, before I gave up on this, it happened to this guy, and looking at the dozens of discussion archives it happened to countless amount of people, where many of them simply asked for a DISPUTED tag or 1 single intro line pointing out that there are people who disagree with the view point shown in this article, but not a single word was left, because this small group of admins is intent to keep this article biased the way it is. Elfguy 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge?
Why is this 9/11 series so incredibly huge?? It rivals WW2 articles in size. And is far larger than descriptions of many wars lasting many years and claiming incredible human victims (like Rwandan_Genocide, Darfur_conflict, Srebrenica_massacre, Algerian Civil War, Second Congo War, to name a few) Wouldnt one, or two, or three articles be quite enough for describing a single event? --Aryah 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In some casses 9/11 is a lot more than one event considering all of the years of planning.--Gecko 7 08:48, 25 July 2006


 * Well, for one, it's more recent and two, more people are familiar with it. b_cubed 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you people serious? An inside job? You throw out these theories without a single shred of credible proof. "The passengers on the plane didn't sound distressed"....what? How is that proof in any way? But hey, at least the Arlington coroner didn't see any blood...still more concrete proof of a conspiracy. What's next? Elvis planned the whole thing? All of the conspiracy theorists that post on this board need to lay off the crystal meth and see if that helps the paranoia issues at all.

(from above)
 * If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you. Blogs and other sites which do not employ objective editorial oversight do not satisfy Wiki standards -- you can't add material from unverifiable and disreputable sources.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

--ThaThinker 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above has numerous personal attacks...see WP:NPA...please don't tell other editors they are lying.


 * I got a 3 days ban for 3RR when I made damn sure never to do 3 reverts in one day (history proves it). Then when posting about it on the mailing list it simply got censored so it never went through. I've provided over a year of editing (anyone can check my stats) but this was the end of my contribution right there. Ya it sounds cliche and drama etc but Wikipedia needs some serious improvement to be something respectable and not the troll forum it currently is, where any random article can be kept locked down in a particular view point as long as a couple of admins are intent to keep it that way. Elfguy 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No they aren't. They are telling you not to cite blogs and non-verifiable stuff. WhisperToMe 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If what I wrote is a personal attack instead of the truth, let him allow some items that 9/11 skeptics would wish that are up to acceptable standards. The Abel Danger program is a matter of Congressional record, and Sibel Edmonds has been the subject of numerous news reports and a lengthy piece in Vanity Fair. She says she read documents describing the funding of 9/11, but she and the Congress have been gagged, and no grand jury or other Congressional inquiry has seen that any wrongdoers are brought to justice on account of her testimony. These topics are not allowed on this page, but we are not citing blogs. These allegations are as yet unproven, but so are doubts about the JFK assasination, or claims that an intellegent being called [God] created the Universe; but these two unproven ideas appear on their respective Wikipedia pages. Although they have not been confrimed, their articles include their claims as told from a neutral point of view. From a scientific point of view, allegations concerning 9/11 indeed verifiable and falsifiable. There are no grounds to exclude these topics, but although Wikipedia rules say minority opinions should be included in an article (especially a main one, IMHO), they are not. I don't think a few sentences to acknowledge the existence of a minority opinion is what those who drafted the rules on minority views had in mind.

I have not belittled Morton's intelligence, nor attacked him in any other way, except to say that when he claims he will allow qualified items, experience has shown that what he says is not the case. --ThaThinker 15:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear ThaThinker, I'm not going to get into any name-calling contest with you, so don't bother. You'll get along much better here if you try to follow Wikipedia policy -- please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR.  By the way, I'm just an editor here -- not an Admin, and don't want to be.[[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 


 * OK, fine. Then we should have no interference introducing a mention of Abel Danger and Sibel Edmonds into the text.  Also, statements which are blatantly government supporting but are disputed should be able to be removed.  I'm not trying to get on with anybody in this.  I'm trying to help the truth get out, so that justice can be done, wherever the trail leads.  Admins who remove the controvercial tag should be so righteous.  Anybody else object?    If you support the ability to mention these relevant and fairly well-documented allegations, I will withdraw my accusation against you, Morton.  The quote I started this section was requires that you will support such a move.


 * I can actually write fairly well. I've written almost two books of my own, and have contributed extensively to one rather contentious Wikipedia article already.  I think I actually do pretty good, in the final draft, of wording rather controvercial material in a neutral manner.  --ThaThinker 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All that fits nicely in the article titled 9/11 conspiracy theories--MONGO 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That does nothing to keep this article from being POV. It is this article I am proposing fixing.  Another strategy might be to REALLY remove statements objected to by 911 skeptics, and have separate articles on the government version and alternative theories.  This would leave this article considerably smaller, with all contentious statements being removed.  Again, the name Conspiracy Theories is POV, because the official version is one too; and it needs to be changed.


 * "If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you." Live up to those words!  --ThaThinker 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm being censored for asking for a Wikipedia editor to live up to his statment. (Comments restored -- JDoorj a m    Talk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

One of the many things that was removed, that was not a personal attack, was that my remarks are directed toward fixing THIS article. Again, if we are to have an article 911 Conspiracy Theories, the official account belongs there too. To put only 911 skeptical information there is POV. THIS article is still badly POV. Also removed were some comments direected toward fixing this article, which were also not personal attacks.

Anybody notice the recent New Yorker story about how the CIA withheld information from an FBI agent Al-Queada before 9/11?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/v-pfriendly/story/432036p-364067c.html

In ''Research in Political Economy", vol. 23, the writer of this serious academic series also find serious questions about 9/11:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm

My request that Morton live up to his statement "If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you."

Among some of the things that were removed were a request that the case of Abel Danger, which is part of the Congressional record, be included, and Sibel Edmonds' case, which has been the subject of many news stories, including Vanity Fair, and who's credentials had been verified in a secret session of congress, be included. Also removed, were a list of four administrators who were blocking this sort of information that meets Wikipedia guidelines. His personal page also admits his non-neutral point of view that 9/11 skeptics are nuts. Fine, but that's an opinion, not NPOV. --ThaThinker 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What, exactly, is it that you'd like to add? I'd personally prefer we discuss the text of The New Yorker, rather than a tabloid's take on a different publication's take on an FBI agent's take on what went wrong leading up to 9/11.  Your second source seems like material for 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I recommend you stick to discussing information you feel should be added, rather than making things personal; attacking other editors isn't productive.  JDoorj a m     Talk 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A number of comments removed don't appear to be personal attacks. Gimme five minutes; I'm putting non-attacks back. JDoorj a m     Talk 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored a number of comments which are passionate, perhaps, but not necessarily personal attacks. I've removed direct mentions of names where it's not relevant to your point; I've bracketed them out thusly:  .  If I have missed any true personal attacks, they should be removed, of course. JDoorj a m     Talk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a personal dispute with you T. If we're going to debate, let's debate about whether an edit adheres or doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policy -- that's our yardstick around here for new edits. Having said that, if you want to include stuff that falls on the grey side of Wiki policy, add it to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, as we're consciously looser over there. Morton Devonshire</b><sup style="color:red;">Yo 

FAA Grounding
Should there be additional information in the section "Long-term effects", after the statement about the FAA grounding, about the lack of air traffic and contrails causing detectable climate changes in the U.S. For example, Wired News has an article on it, and more sources could easily be found. --Cipherswarm 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's really interesting, but is probably more appropriate in the airliner article than here. Climate change isn't a long-term effect of 9/11, it's a long-term effect of air travel. JDoorj a m     Talk 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The global dimming article exists. It may (or may not) be worth a passing link where the article mentions all the planes were grounded. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss reverts
As per the discussion about the term "terrorism" above which seemed to conclude with nobody objecting to it being a POV statement, I changed the article.

However, people are blindly reverting this without refering to the talk page. If I keep reverting it back to what was discussed here I'll be blocked under the 3RR. The people reverting it won't because there are large numbers of them.

What is the point of having a talk page if opinionated morons can overwhelm the article with pro-American POV insertions? Damburger 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Mmx1 has just reverted the changes I made once again, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THEM HERE. I discussed my edit at great length for DAYS before I made it, yet there are people reverting them without any discussion here at all.

I'd also like to point out, that just because one POV is very popular amongst the US media, it does not qualify as a fact. It is STILL JUST A POV

Damburger 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I made all the comments I needed in the edit summary. --Mmx1 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I tore your 'reasoning' apart here. What you are invoking is an Appeal to popularity fallacy. Of course, becaues of the 3RR I can't revert your POV, but that doesn't make you right. Damburger 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
The article must separate the facts from interpretations, and must not blindly treat "official" interpretation as true.

Just one example:
 * 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda

Compare with: Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks: At least eight of the names on the FBI's list have been called into doubt.

And with al-Qaeda: ''According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. The extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.''

So it isn't all that clear whether there really were exactly 19 people, who were they, and whether they were really "affiliated with al-Qaeda" in literal sense. There are many more cases where the article blindly accepts the "official" version. We cannot do that, as it threatens neutrality and quality of Wikipedia. Taw 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its clear that NPOV can't exist in this article because of the vast numbers of highly opinionated Americans willing to ram the pro-American point of view down everybodies throats. Don't bother Taw. Damburger 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. We have been able to deal with many highly controversial subjects before. The article can stay NPOV-tagged until we're done. Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Beware of using wikipedia as a source.
 * By your standards, any non-deterministic human event is just an "interpretation". How do you know Columbus landed in the Americas? There's no empirical evidence you can examine; you can't interview the participants. But history is based on the interpretation of human actions and the predominant interpretation by not just journalists but academics is that there were 19 men affiliated with Al Qaeda. The lack of perfect information does not mean that we do not make any conclusions. We stick with the predominant one and note the objections where apropos, i.e. in the Organizers and Al Queda articles--Mmx1 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please notice that Neutral point of view is official policy that have been with us since the project started, and is universally accepted. The policy is explicitly about not sticking with the predominant view. Taw 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy also states that undue weight should also not be given to minority opinions, hence why the doubters only a small part of the Organizers and Al Queda articles. It is not necessary to recreate the debate in a one-sentence mention in the Introduction when clearly there is a predominant position. --Mmx1 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The NPOV policy also explicitly addresses undue weight. We respect "undue weight" by providing a paragraph on conspiracy theories, along with a link to the subarticle.  We also need to go with reliable sources.  The term 'terrorism' is used extensively in describing 9/11.  I'll repeat my comments from above here:
 * "'Not just Americans use the term 'terrorism' in reference to 9/11. So does Kofi Annan of the United Nations, as do the news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism."
 * And the link between the 19 hijackers and Al-Qaeda is well established, per reliable sources. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well established by whom? The idea that the official story is incorrect may be a fringe theory in the US, but it certainly isn't elsewhere. A survey once found that about 20% of young Germans the US government was involved in 9/11. Damburger 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 20% still constitutes a fringe opinion. Hell, a higher percentage of Americans believe in creationism. More importantly, the academic and journalistic communities concur that the link is well-established. --Mmx1 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could someone explain how is that link relevant there ? It seems to be completely off-topic.
 * Could someone find and link the purported evidence that the 19 hijackers were "affiliated with al-Qaeda".
 * Please do not remove NPOV tag unilaterally. This is a highly disruptive behaviour. Taw 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review NPOV before reinserting the tag. You're giving undue weight to unreliable sources. 38.117.248.130 22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue is getting somewhat confused: The issue of whether wikipedia should use the phrase 'terrorist attack' has been swept under the carpet by the pro-US POV users, despite their not being able to form a cogent argument in favour of using it. I am going to remove 'terrorist' as it is POV language, unless someone can give me a good reason not to (I haven't seen one yet) Damburger 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, continue to dismiss editors as "pro-US" when it has been demonstrated that the term is in wide usage in the Non-American and non-western media. --Mmx1 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The extent to which the media uses it (which, by the way you are exaggerating a great deal) is irrelevant. It is still POV. I am going to continue to remove the pro-US bias you are inserting. You have yet to make a single valid argument in favour of using such a loaded term. Damburger 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia forbids the kind of POV-pushing that you are exercising here. Please review WP:NPOV.  The use of the word terrorism to describe what happened is well-supported by reference to reputable sources, and your position is not.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<b style="font-size:small; color:blue;">Morton Devonshire</b><sup style="color:red;">Yo 


 * By 'reputable sources' I take it that you mean 'mainstream western media'. I find it infuriating that I have to deal with the kind of people who think stating that the US was attacked on 9/11 is a POV statement just because it doesn't use the word 'terrorist'. My position doesn't need support - unless you are questioning that the US was attacked - as I am simply stating facts. You and your fellow pro-Americans are the ones introducing a term that is highly POV.

Obviously, numbers once again win out over logic and intelligence here thanks to the 3RR. This is one of the biggest weaknesses of wikipedia. Damburger 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be dissin' our melons, Boyo. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<b style="font-size:small; color:blue;">Morton Devonshire</b><sup style="color:red;">Yo 
 * Here's Xinhua using the phrase "terrorist attacks" to describe 9/11. Here's the Hindustan Times doing the same.  Here's the South African Globe and Mail referring to them as terror attacks.  Here's the Lebanon Daily Star referring to 9/11 as "acts of terrorism" that, along with other terrorist attacks, have "smeared the image of Islam."  The term is not solely the domain of "mainstream western media".  JDoorj a m     Talk 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that make is less POV? Not one bit. Saying there was an attack is a statement of fact. Saying there was a terrorist is a statement of opinion. Doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, and certainly not in a header. If those publications use the term, then the term can be used and is used in quotes from them. I'd also like to point out that the BBC link I was given an example of as saying it was a terrorist attack doesn't in fact say that. Probably because the BBC is a fairly unbiased source. Damburger 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides repeated assertion, what have you got? Find a reliable source that says the 19 hijackers were gallant freedom fighters, and we can include that, with quotes and plenty of context. Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "US Rocked By Terror Attacks". Or do you mean to quibble about the phrases "terror attacks" and "terrorist attacks"? --Mr. Billion 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that September 11th is a terrorist attack is POV. Saying that it isn't is still POV. Either way, we're leaning in a direction of bias. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I'm *not* suggesting the article say it isn't a terrorist attack. The statement 'There was an attack on the US' doesnt preclude the attack being a terrorist attack, not does it state that it is. That is true NPOV. I don't need to find a source saying the 9/11 hijackers were 'gallant freedom fighters' because what I've inserted hasn't implied that at all. Considering one of the BBC links you used to 'refute' my argument actually refered to the attacks as simply 'attacks' without qualifying them as 'terrorist attacks' makes your case very weak indeed and I'm going to continue trying to get some NPOV in this article. Damburger 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that both statements non-neutral is itself non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe there is even a discussion right now over whether or not September 11 was a terrorist attack. I hope to God you guys don't write history books. NOTHING will ever get done. Stanselmdoc 13:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It crops up from time to time. I don't know why. --Mr. Billion 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Political correctness. Stanselmdoc 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really an issue of serious debate here, as attempts to insert that political point of view are quickly removed per Wikipedia policy. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<b style="font-size:small; color:blue;">Morton Devonshire</b><sup style="color:red;">Yo 

At the very least, Damburger, wouldn't you agree that the sources cited above (Xinhua etc al.) address your concern of a "mainstream western media"-centric viewpoint? Also, what was the attack if not terrorism? Can't we reasonably conclude that Al-Queda (or whichever composite group the hijackers belonged to) pursues an agenda of "violence [...] to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately to bring about compliance w/ specific political, religious, [and] ideological goals," per Wikipedia's own definition of terrorism?

I guess we can discuss the second point, but I don't see know you can continue to maintain a position that only the "western media" refers to the attacks as terrorist. Icewolf34 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If those who desire not to call them terrorist attacks have their way on THIS article, then I feel we must all be obligated to remove any mention of terrorism within every other attack article here at wiki. After all, we can't be the judges of the reasons behind attacking and killing innocent people in order to generate fear and bring compliance with a specific goal.  That's just wrong.  Who KNOWS how many people in the World Trade Center could've been serial killers or child molesters?  Maybe the terrori...oh I'm sorry...maybe the people who expressed their differing opinion through the unconventional and ingenious use of a large-scale demonstration...maybe THEY were doing the U.S. a favor.  Have we ever stopped to consider that?  I think that should be mentioned in the opening paragraph.  It's extremely important that we represent accurately what those brave freedom-fighters were striving for. Stanselmdoc 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster terrorism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I borrowed that from the top of the talk page. Anyway, by definition, 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Did the militants (to avoid pissing certain people off) use terror? Yes. Did they use it as a means of coercion, or at least attempted coetcion? Yes. Therefore, it was an act of terrorism.

You talk about pro-American editors ramming a POV down your throat and in the article, saying they have no argument. I've yet to see any validated argument from you. Your also ramming your POV into the article when you keep trying to revert it.


 * Yet again, the same arugments that I tore apart earlier. Repeating them doesn't make them any more valid, and ignoring the fact I've got a watertight case doesn't constitute refuting me. Just because something has a dictionary definition doesn't mean its a not a POV term.
 * I'd also ask you all to refrain from leaving threats on my talk page. I'm aware you can't actually refute my arguments but you shouldn't resort to such petty measures.
 * Also, can someone explain to me how "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States" is a POV statement? It is merely a statement of fact. Wheres the POV? Answer: There is none.

Damburger 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, by removing words you decrease the change of POV. In fact, a blank article is the surest guarentee of NPOV. The question is whether the additional information is valuable and balanced enough to merit inclusion. So far as I can tell, your argument about western-media bias has been thouroghly debunked (again, see Xinhua et al above). Your claim that "Saying there was a terrorist is a statement of opinion" is not at all valid, since there is in fact a working definition of terrorism (see Webster above, or Wikipedia definition), and the Sept 11th attacks fall firmly into those definitions. How can you claim that we're not addressing your arguments? Icewolf34 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't refute your arguments? Look at this entire section and tell me that with a straight face. Your "argument" has been refuted pretty much every time you open your mouth about it.

Honestly, I'm suprised this page hasn't been locked to editing... Someguy-021 05:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Someguy-021

Despite being threatened, blocked inappropriately, and having my cogent arguments plainly ignored by people hell bent of enforcing an American POV, I am not going to give this up. The fact remains, no matter how many news sources you cite, or dictionary definitions you come up with (which, by the way, don't imply NPOV. "Wanker" has a definition in the OED) 'terrorist' is still a POV term. Wikipedia states this elsewhere, why can't it be consistent with itself here? What you Americans never seem to get is that many opinions which are popular in the US are fringe opinions worldwide - after all, the US only represents about 5% of the population. Talk about undue weight. Damburger 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly...who gives a crap what you think? The event happened in the U.S. and your anti-American bias is so obvious you can cut it with a knive so shove off. I don't go into articles about events that happened in countries outside the U.S. and tell them they're biased. You're failure to see that the events of 9/11 were textbook level definitions of terrorism betray your obvious anti-American bias. Stop wasting our time with this radical nonsense.--MONGO 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Radical nonsense, eh? Even a large number of your own countrymen, hardly known for being objective on something, aren't fully convinced it was even an attack - http://seattlepi.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html - let alone a terrorist attack. Just because you haven't seen something on Fox News doesn't mean it is a radical. Damburger 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the survey question itself referred to them as "the 9/11 terrorist attacks," so 0% of the respondents said that they weren't "convinced it was even an attack," and, presupposing terrorism, the poll is moot for the discussion as to whether to include the term. What they said was that it's possible that some people in the Federal government either assisted or took no action because they wanted us to go to war in the Middle East.  There were no questions about whether or not we were attacked, whether or not it was terrorism, etc.  You also seem to imply that all Americans have the same opinion and that we speak with one voice, and that we all watch Fox News.  These things are also untrue.  You seem, finally, to simply dislike Americans in general; I hope that's not an accurate assessment.  JDoorj a m     Talk 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If these people believed the federal government was involved, they probably wouldn't classify the attacks as terrorist attacks. But thats not the point. The point is that the POV you are your allies are pushing is by no means universal, even in your own country. I know you are all keen to paint me as an al qaeda symapthiser because I don't happen to follow the Bushist line, but the fact is I do think 9/11 was an act of terrorism - I am just detached enough from the event to realise that is just my opinion and plenty of other people think differently. Damburger 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was a terrorist attack is hard to dispute. Even for those who might believe that the gov't was complicit in the attacks, does not negate the fact that the attack falls under the definition of terrorist...it would just mean that the gov't factions supposedly involved were the terrorist in question.

Now whether Al-Quaida were the terrorists who committed the attack, now that is questionable, especially when 5-7 of the suspected are still alive. I can find the sources for this if they have not previously been posted.Mablespam 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest
That if there continue to be problems regarding discussion of 911, rather than discussion of the article, that interested parties do so at our discussion site, abovetopsecret.com, or more specifically our 911 Forum. I only mention this in hopes of helping the wikipedia to avoid unwanted discussions. We also have a wikipedia ( the Tinwiki) that is perhaps more appropriate for some of the controversial aspects of these topics Nygdan 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Should distinguish between
facts and POV, amke make a clear distinction, too.

We all know that the majority of people do not read the whole article, but rather they focus on the first lines to see what's all about, so let's concentrate on the first paragraphs, even though the rest of the article is still of major importance.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

This may be considered right, especially when the word "terrorist" may identify a variety of people, even governments if necessary.

That morning, 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot.

There is no actual evidence to support this claim. The official story has been under investigation by a numerous amount of indipendent journalists, writers and individuals. If Wikipedia is really open as it should, it has to include something like:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report [...], yet many doubts about the facts presented are still unanswered (link to conspiracy theories/truth behind or list of plausible explanations)

Just to be fair and square, you know. <span style="background: #f8fcff; color: #0067db; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS';">Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, conspiracy theories need no mention in the intro. They are mentioned later in there article, with a link to the subarticle.  As well, the vast majority of reliable sources concur with the "official" account, while there lacks reliable sources to the contrary.  -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Federico Pistono and like-minded conspiracists, let's make this perfectly clear for you: we won't be including anything from any "independent journalists, writers and individuals", unless, of course, they write for a media source which is subject to editorial oversight, and is notable (in other words, no blogs or 9/11 advocacy sites).  Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS) prohibits us from including information from unreliable sources -- we are not a place of original publication, but an encyclopedia.  Myself and many of the other editors here will resist all efforts you make to include such original research.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<b style="font-size:small; color:blue;">Morton Devonshire</b><sup style="color:red;">Yo 


 * Dear Morton Devonshire, how about the 9/11 Truth Movement, which has quite an extensive article on Wikipedia?
 * <span style="background: #f8fcff; color: #0067db; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS';">Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be tangental, but the problem with this logic is that it can be argued that WMD were found in Iraq, since FOX news ( a so-called reputable news source) has stated as fact that WMD were found in Iraq. Furthermore, when independent media points out the fallacy in this, they should not garner credibility because they are on the fringe?

I do not consider myself a conspiracy nut, but rather an engineer, man of science and "doubting Thomas" who relies on scientific evidence, not merely popularity of purported fact in mainstream media. If anyone can show that 19 suspects of the attacks were al-quaida members and that 5-7 were not found alive, i would be rather intrigued to see the facts other than "official reports say so." Mablespam 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern media coverage
Reaction From Morning Shows An unlikely source of news and comfort for New Yorkers and others across the country was Howard Stern, who kept listeners constantly updated on what was happening at the Trade Center and across New York City. Several listeners and frequent guest Crazy Cabbie called in to report what they were witnessing from various parts of the city. The Stern Show kept broadcasting well beyond its normal hours until mid-afternoon, in an attempt to provide a voice of reason in the aftermath.

I am disappointed to find this was deleted from the article on Apr 21, I had to do alot of searching to find out why, all the discussion was one-sided (archived Apr 2006). I can assert that it was more than a few listeners that day, likely more than usual due to the fact many radio and television transmitters were knocked out in the attacks, leaving fewer sources of information. In addition, the west coast markets heard the broadcast live, whereas normally the show is delayed. People in dozens of cities around the country listened to observers in New York who were mere blocks away from the events of 9/11. Maybe it cannot be added back entirely, perhaps re-written or just linked somewhere. This broadcast was part of the history of that day, surely someone out there agrees. Barrel-rider 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream propaganda
This Wikipedia entry is a blot on the fair name of Wikipedia.

Countless eminent scholars have pointed out NUMEROUS holes in the official story -- the use of thermate to damage the main structural columns of WTC 1 & 2, the removal of the evidence from the crime scene, the conflicting defense exercises on 9/11, the fact that WTC 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft but collapsed in its own footprint, commercial airliners CAN'T be flown at those speeds and maneovers because of their force feed-back systems, Hani Hanjour could barely fly a Cessna let alone a sophisticated airliner, the Pentagon showed virtually no signs of airliner wreckage, and on and on ad nauseum.

Retired US generals have come out in support of 9/11 conspiracy, Hollywood actors, schoolteachers, university professors, rock singers (Ministry, Slipknot, etc), journalists (yes, even the ones that don't submit 9/11 articles because their employers are PAID not to run the stuff (email me and I'll tell you some names)), school kids, tradesmen, etc, etc.

How many more people will it take before this section of Wikipedia at least QUALIFIES its statements to reflect the possibility that 4 inept patsies may not have pulled 9/11 but a cabal of US government officials including Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Larry Silverstein, and a host of others pulled 9/11 to win the hearts and minds of the population to motivate the to go to war in Afgahnistan and Iraq (and perhaps Iran, etc).

Ministry have released a 9/11 conspiracy song "Lies, Lies, Lies"

"We're on a mission to never forget 3,000 people that I've never met We want some answers but all that we get Is some kinda shit about a terrorist threat."

Until this Wikipedia entry reflects reality, it will remain a part of the conspiracy that 9/11 was.

"A time when silence is betrayal" Martin Luther King


 * A lot of people in these discussion pages agree, or at the very least have unanswered questions, but arguing it here is useless. There's page after page of achived comments from new editors that come here, try to change the article, and are reverted back every single time by the cliche that hangs here and make sure not even a 'disputed' tag, or a single word, gets in that would go against the official story. Basically you're wasting your time and I suggest instead you do what I do and spend that time trying to educate people to go to the real, multiple sources to get their information, and stay clear of bias online web pages like wikipedia. Here's some starts:

1. The real history of Al-Qaeda from the BBC 2. In-depth analysis of the 9/11 commission 3. Just some of the many unanswered questions that you wont find on Wikipedia, but the LA Times published 4.A poll shows a third of Americans that the US helped in the 9/11 bombings, FOX News

Research for yourself. Wikipedia articles only show one side of any story. Elfguy 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage you to take a look at and the link to the larger sub-article there. Feel free to add NPOV facts/well-documented, notable theories to either section. (Preferably to the subpage, since this page is already v. long.) Also, out of personal curiousity, given the "countless eminent scholars" and "retired US generals" espousing these theories, why in the world do you bother to note the opinions of "Hollywood actors [...] rock singers, [and] schoolkids"? Surely a quote from some scholar would serve your viewpoint here better than the lyrics of some rock group? Icewolf34 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. The eminent opinions of schoolkids. Excuse me while I add to women that "girls have cooties" and Santa Claus and tooth fairy the significant alternative POV that they are real.--Mmx1 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Scholars? What eminent scholars do you refer to?  Name one.  Morton devonshire 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Elfguy, you got the "on and on ad nauseum" part right.Levi P. 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's one - Noam Chomsky. Eminent enough for you?

Response in the arab world
On September 11, 2001 I remember watching on TV pictures taken in the middle east of people dancing and celebrating in the streets. I see no mention of those scenes in the "September 11, 2001 series of articles". Why? On some web forums I have heard these reports were false, but even if it is true that they were false it should be mentioned anyway since those pictures had a significant influence on the western public. Comments? Mieciu K 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article on it: Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It covers what you're asking about, I believe. Richard G. Shewmaker 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add this site


It is a removed site from the 9/11 conspiracy theories site. I went ahead and WP:BB and added the site. This is the first page I have seen with such lame ass restrictions about posting sites. Travb (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Must all opinions be included?? Nope!
Great article. This is about as balanced as it can be without drifting over into the absurd by including every conspiracy theory and extreme bias known to man. To insist that there must be absolute, unassailable proof before printing anything about 9/11 is to expect the impossible. To insist that every POV be represented (from what I've read on this discussion board) for the article to be considered impartial is just plain crazy. The perpetrators' and their sympathizers' points of view simply are not valid. For example, I've yet to read a history book that says that Adolf Hitler allegedly was responsible for the Holocaust or that Germany allegedly invaded Poland in 1939. I don't recall seeing "equal time" being given to Nazi POVs on any matter. There's a good reason for this.Jlujan69 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
i think a terrorist attack infobox sghould be added to the article


 * It's hideous, mister unsigned person. --Golbez 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternate theory that MUST BE INCLUDED in the MAIN ARTICLE
This theory is CLEARLY NOTABLE as it has gotten major media attention. It completely debunks the "official" theory (who are you going to trust? Federal "career scientists" and so-called "professional structural engineers" or a neutral party like Oliver Stone?) and if it's not included in the article I may do something totally drastic and irrational. Cheers,JDoorj a m    Talk 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Make my day.  Morton devonshire 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong death toll
I notice the death toll was again changed to the wrong one. Its not 2,976! Its 2,996 and this toll does not include the terrorists! Also, the real firgure is 2,948 confirmed dead, 24 reported dead and 24 reported missing, which comes to a toll of 2,996 victims. The particular website I used is cited by the White House and the IRS, which can be found on the home page of this website. The home page for this website is and the web page were it states the correct death toll of the victims is.


 * It does not cite its sources, so I fail to see why it is more reputable than the existing CNN and report sources on its face. Can you show me where the White House and IRS cite this website? --Golbez 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The White House website cites the source on this link. They have not updated this website, but the source is September 11 Victims, which is the particular website that I used for the firgure of 2,996 victims. Also, I don't think CNN is a good source at all, because the Tsunami death toll on their site is still 162,000, which is wrong.


 * CNN was citing official New York City figures . Though, this figure was as of 2003.  The same figure, 2976, was cited in 2004 by CBS  regarding the 9/11 compensation fund, and by the U.S. Department of Justice.   If the figure has changed since then, we need sources detailing that. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that was 3 and 2 years ago. The particular website that I used to get the firgure of 2,996 is updated daily and it is correct. The correct death toll is 2,948 confirmed dead, 24 reported dead and 24 reported missing, which comes to a total of 2,996 victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.31.126 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 August 2006


 * The figure, 2976, is also corroborated by the official Flight 93 National Memorial brochure by the National Park Service.  This brochure was published in 2002, so includes the 40 fradulent cases that were subtracted in October 2003.  Other than that, their figures match. For anything more recent, we need some other source that explains the difference between the 2004 figure and the one you cite.  Why the differences? I would be interested to know and clear up any confusion. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I as well would like to clear up the confusion and determine the correct death toll. Also, it states on the homepage of this website that it was used as a source in the final 9/11 commission report.


 * I'll look more into this tonight. I'm not 100% sure on the figures for American Airlines Flight 11 - I've seen both 87 and 88 reported.  And for United Airlines Flight 175, I mostly see 59 reported, but also have seen 60 used as the figure.  Either way, I'm fairly confident that the numbers should add up to 2,796 (the official number reported).  But, if you find any sources indicating any official change to the number since 2004, they would be important to have here.  I'm guessing that the difference between the 2004 official count and september11victims.com may have to do with the "reported dead" and "reported missing".  Maybe some of those turned out to be fraudlent?  I can try and come up with specific names that account for the differences, between the sources. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, I suggest you create an account, to make it easier for people to leave messages on your talk page and work with you. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 9/11 Commission Report reference to september11victims.com is among many different sources (also including CNN and others) they used. This was in reference to determining how many victims worked at or above the impact zone in the WTC, an investigation done by NIST. Here's the footnote (#200, chapter 9) from the 9/11 Commission Report:

"'For the estimate, see NIST report, 'WTC Investigation Progress,' June 22-23, 2004. For the updated death certificate information, see New York City report, 'WTC Victim List,' June 21, 2004. The analysis in this paragraph is based upon the following sources: CNN, 'September 11: A Memorial,' updated 2004 (online at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html); company contacts, June 29, 2004 (online at http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/contacts/companies_list.asp?letter=1); CNN, WTC tenants, 2001 (online at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html); September 11 personal tributes, June 19, 2004 (online at http://www.legacy.com/LegacyTribute/Sept11.asp); September 11 personal profiles, Oct. 11, 2003 (online at http://www.september11victims.com/september11Victims); New York Times, Portraits: 9/11/01: The Collected 'Portraits of Grief' (Times Books, 2002).'"

And the 9/11 Commission itself never provided an official total figure. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool and if we can't firgure it out soon, its no big problem because on September 11 coming up this year many articles will give the final death toll so we can get it from them.

So did you determine if 2,976 or 2,996 is the correct number?


 * Turns out, going through a list of nearly 3,000 and crosschecking sources isn't something one can do in an evening. I'll try and finish up with it this weekend, or possibly early next week, and provide results somewhere in my userspace.  -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change (video)
I do think that this video is well referenced. That is why others can write line by line debunks of the arguments this video makes (like ). If I want to check statements from the movie, all I need to do is google sources quoted, and read the rest of the referenced story. Although I do agree it should be in the 911 conspiracy article. Lakinekaki 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It cited Wikipedia and Metafilter. If that doesn't complete negate any positive referencing it has, nothing does. And if there are line-by-line debunks, then is it really relevant? --Golbez 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP is not about publishing only truth, but all cited information, be it true or false. Every reader will judge the arguments for him/herself.Lakinekaki 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also WP:NPOV; placing undue weight on minority views, and WP:RS, the consideration of reliable sources. What good is a source if it cites wiki? That's a bit circular, no? --Mmx1 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Loose Change is an adolescent, moronic bunch of junk science developed by POV pushers of nonsense. Having it in the article violates numerous policies and guidelines.--MONGO 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Death toll
Hello there I just watch the movie "World Trade Center" and at the end it said 2,749 people were killed in the attack at the wtc. So therefore, I remember that they lowed it further from 2,752 to 2,749. So the new death toll when added up is 2,973 confirmed dead with 24 reported missing. All together its 2,997 victims and with the terrorists its 3,016.

Hello again I just updated the article with the correct death toll with 2,973 confirmed dead and with another 24 that remain listed as missing.

The death toll that CNN has at 2,973 is calculated like this. 2,749 died at the WTC. 125 died at the Pentagon. 59 died on flight 77. 40 died on flight 93. So, therefore the total dead comes to be 2,973. However, September 11 Victims is also a good source as well, because if you use their firgures it still adds up to 2,973. They have 2,948 listed as confirmed dead, but lets add one for flight 11 to make it 88 like CNN did. So the total confirmed dead will stand at 2,949 according to this site . They also have another 24 people reported as dead. Also, another 24 remain listed as missing. So, the total according to September 11 Victims is 2,973 killed with another 24 that remain listed as missing to this day.

This is absolutely macabre. The point isn't determining exactly how many people died! This is exactly what Herbert called "the ferocious quibble over a comma."

Besides, with loss of life on this magnitude, exact casualty figures all but impossible. That's why the military uses the classification of "Missing."

In WW1, on the first day of the Somme offense (1 SEP 1916), 20,000 British soldiers were killed in 20 minutes. 20,000 were Missing. In fact, many of them were KIA. They were hit by German shells and their bodies completely disintegrated. Nothing was left to identify.

The idea of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (a British idea) came out of this reality. Such pettifogging exactitude marries horror with pedantry. Do you think they sit around at Yad Vashem trying to get the decimal points right?

Let us honor all the murdered, known and unknown.

PainMan 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this isn't a war its a terrorist attack in New York City so everyone that is confirmed and listed as missing are the victims of 9/11 and in total the death toll is 2,997 victims.

I'm afraid, Unsigned Person, that you miss the point. It was an act of war. Terrorism is what  military analysts and historians call Asymmetrical Warfare.  We used it against the British during the Revolution  (let no one go brain dead and assume I'm labelling the Revolutionaries, for whom my great-great-great-great grandfather made guns, were terrorists). The Afghans against the Soviets. More pertinently, the tactics the IRA used against the British.

Never in history have acts of war been confined solely to sovereign states. The tens of thousands of terrorists we've killed, the 3 out of 4 Al-Qaeda leaders captured or killed, in the years since the attack certainly believed they were waging "holy" war against freedom, justice and religious toleration. The last, of course, being the thing they hate the most.

It's important for the government to ascertain the exact death toll for insurance companies, distrubting aid, distributions from the settlement fund, prevention of fraud (of which there has been a disgustingly large amount), etc. For history, however, it's not necessary. Whether it's 2997, 2998 or 3001 dead is irrelevent. It's like arguing over exactly how many Jews the Hitlerites killed during the Shoah--petty, pedantic and offensive.

PainMan 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. What are you trying to do? Make the death toll greater than it really is? Anyways, 9/11 might have been an "act of war", but it is still a terrorist attack. In the end, 3,016 people died in the attacks and 2,997 of them were victims. Also, when it comes to the attacks of 9/11 the exact numbers are known. So in this case it is important to get the numbers correct and I can state that we have.

Reference size
Too many articles to check out. I found the comment do not reduce font sizes, the Wiki style sheets control presentation. That must be done manually by adding a DIV with the class references-small. Does anyone object this modification? It is custom to reduce the size of references when there are many. -- ReyBrujo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory page
Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.

After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.

This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys!  Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."

Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.

PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Garbage? This entire page is Garbage. Tha FACTS do not support the 9/11 Commisions "findings" they never have. Loose Chnage is as close to tha facts as anyone will EVER get. The "findings" of the 9/11 Commission have been continually and successfully disputed. People like you who continue to blind themslevs to the truth so that you can shirk your REAL patriotic responsibilities make it easier for those really resposnible to perpetuate a lie. This article is not Neutral.--68.186.142.187 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, you think loose change is real, how cute --Golbez 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the dude without the courage to sign his-/herself before attacking me should bother to actually read comments before attacking them. You might save yourself some embarassment. I made no comment on the 9/11 Commission Report whatsoever. In fact, I agree that 9/11 Commission was a joke. For example, it makes no mention of the proven involvement of Saddam Hussein in the preparation for the attacks. PainMan 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with any of theories I read during these years about the date chosen by al-Qaeda. As European I think this is due to the youth of the U.S.A. and its lack of history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But why the Belvedere (palace)?

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

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

And who was Prince Eugene of Savoy?

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

The Battle of Vienna took place on September 11, 1683.

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

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

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

If all this was known why didn't anyone warn us about the date September 11th?


 * Irrelevant. Unless you're joking, have a look at the no original research Wikipedia policy. 82.181.61.48 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual Responses
Hi,

I'm trying to find responses to 9/11 not from the media or politicians but from historians, political scientists, philsophers, sociologists etc. It seems to be an area that would be useful to include in the article. Does someone know of any such responses?

--Lucaas

lol. I think your a bit of head of yourself. I think your answer lies in the 26th Century.


 * For historians, perhaps not the other groups or professors in general. But, if you we must wait till 2500, such responses being absent, keep your patience.Lucaas 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth
Everyone, from the Queen of England to the hounds of hell, knows truth behind 9/11. So in the name of decency and understanding of darkness that it involved in this whole monstrosity remove any mention of responsibilities and/or motives from article. These are false facts, and they simply cannot stand in encyclopedia. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that each & every cause for war in Iraq is false. Please, act immediately! This page will be one of the focal points in times of anniversary, and Wikipedia must not stand as a lie. I sincerely hope that you all understand that this is not a question of debate; it is question of humanity and liberty… Act with haste, & God speed…

Mainstream
Yes baby, we are going mainstream! --Striver 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus one
This mother wants you to not mention her daughter in this context. Are we legaly bound to respect that? --Striver 01:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No were not and we will not. I bet if her daughter was alive today she would smack her mother out for saying that!

LOL
Why is this in the article lol:

"The attacks were widely referred to as terrorism in most of the world, by the majority of people, no matter their race, nationality or faith."

Intro
"The attacks were widely referred to as terrorism in most of the world, by the majority of people, no matter their race, nationality or faith.". Who's Line is it anyway? --Haham hanuka 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism?
I'm not sure that these attacks should be considered terrorosm. After all, 214,000+ people died when Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, but the U.S. Government still denies the fact that it was terrorism, while dwelling on 9/11 airplane bombings, where less than 3,000 people died.

OK, I know that this WAS terrorism, but it doesn't compare to things like the Armenian Genocide, where 1.5 million people were brutally, sadistically killed (like setting women's hair on fire, and making their children clap & laugh), while others were tortured, and forced to walk through the desert, so hugry, that they ate droppings of camels. The worst part is that USA helps cover this up, and even fired a U.S. Ambassador for reffering to the genocide as a 'genocide'.

There have been many other tragedies - like the Indian Ocean Earthquake, which added to 275,000+ deaths, and 229,866 lost people - in non-U.S. countries, but they just don't pay too much attention.

Americans are self-centered, and (they will deny this) they don't care about deaths in any other country, because, sub-conciously or conciously, they beleive they are superior, becuase the media tells them that, and they think that because they are rich, they themselves are worth more.

"'Why is this 9/11 series so incredibly huge?? It rivals WW2 articles in size. And is far larger than descriptions of many wars lasting many years and claiming incredible human victims (like Rwandan_Genocide, Darfur_conflict, Srebrenica_massacre, Algerian Civil War, Second Congo War, to name a few) Wouldnt one, or two, or three articles be quite enough for describing a single event?' --Aryah 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)"

You are a very smart person! Someone who understands what I'm talking about!

Anyway, yeah, it's bad that those people died, but here's the secret: BUSH, THE U.S. GOV'T, CIA, ETC. ALL KNEW THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN!....But they don't want YOU to know.


 * Let's assume good faith rather than start pointing fingers. September 11 was a modern event which captured international attention and moreover, as it was in a western nation, was well documented, especially on the internet. How much information is available on the 2004 tsunami? A magnitude less. Historical events especially so because most of the documentation is available in paper and is less accessible to the typical wiki editor than internet sources. Moreover, add the amount of conspiracy theorists trying to rewrite the article constantly and that adds to a heavy level of activity, drawing editors to this page to refute and rebuke such additions. If there were active Earthquake conspiracy theorists proclaiming it to be the result of the Halliburton Earthquake Machine (TM), you'd bet there'd be a lot of activity on those pages, too.--Mmx1 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FREEDOM
Enough of all that subliminal fodder don't hide it like some villains… say it straight! Truth with PEACE & LOVE!


 * Please make sense. --Golbez 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, pardon me, but it's all around:

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/08/21/254.html So It would be nice to see it here… Do you know that FBI actually confirmed (better word, admitted) that Osama didn’t have anything, nothing, nada… to do with 911 (google it)? Just check the news… and correct those errors… that is to whoever is in charge there?


 * Ah this claim appears from time to time. The problem is it simply isn't true. The FBI has made no such statement.Geni 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I've just jumped in from another forum, do as you wish… it will be over soon… http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html


 * hmm which forum would that be? Would you get a JREF ninja reference?Geni 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should be on forum, lots of genies there already:))) and you can confirm facts stated in that article at your state department – if any… Say have you seen some new jokes about bush? Here have one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciEGEDgE1k4&mode=related&search


 * You can also ask google for terms failure (or moron)… se what comes up! High HO!

Michael Moore?Squiggyfm 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting close to link spam. We don't care what links say, if you want to add something then add it. But stop spamming the talk page with stuff people aren't responding to. --Golbez 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they are shocked:)… Apologies, as an old user I should have known better… just a bit exited, can't blame… but I like that court link the most… it will be available tomorrow… nations wide… I won't add anything to the article, however I would remove those "questionable" lyrics, and stick to the facts… whatever, it's done, take care…

Whoever put the tag on top of the page about not discussing conspiracys or gvt inepitude, thank you. We don't need any crap like that in a factual article.

But ignore me. Back to the discussion. 69.148.78.247 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What's there to discuss… it's on CNN as we speak… front page… you can hardly miss it… factual article? LOL…

Boilerplate
If the discussion is innapropriate, than say so, if a block is in order, than block. This is supposed to be an article about the Sept 11 attacks, and this is a discussion page. Wikipedia does not censor.(no discussion of government ineptitude even?) Please do not replace that tag. It will be removed. SkeenaR 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page. This is for discussing the "article". Not the subject. Talking about content additions is okay. Not debating about which plane was not hijacked, or who funded Haliburton. This is not a message board. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of view of the article is worth discussion. If I understand this correctly, the goal of the encyclopedia is to be a reference of fact, and though you might like us to discuss the point of view and integrity of this article at another forum, to do so is not reasonable.Slipgrid


 * if you like more delicate things, I find this letter to be another master piece… http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html

and this http://www.courttv.com/home_primetime/index.html? This is just prime time… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelight (talk • contribs)


 * Again, this just further proved my thoughts. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, who needs a boilerplate when you've got a guard dog. : ) Morton devonshire 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah look, block him then, or if you can't do it than call in an admin. It's been done before, and obviously a tag like that doesn't help with the hard cases, does it? We don't need to scare people off from discussing the things involved in the events that may or may not be included in the article with such a warning. SkeenaR 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not about scaring people. If anything, it will ward off people only looking to throw a bunch of link spam. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see why some might not like the boilerplate, but truthfully, it should be clear to all that our efforts here are to try and improve the article...I have no problem with the boilerplate.--MONGO 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's completely innapropriate. Many new users would be afraid to post anything for fear of being bitten, and the Naziesque implication that mention of ineptitude on the part of the government won't be tolerated isn't so cool either, is it? SkeenaR 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, why don't you warn him and then carry on from there? The boilerplate won't fix this problem, but an admin can sure make a difference in these situations. that's why you have those buttons. SkeenaR 06:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
 * He's been warned. Let's see if he responds appropriately. I suppose we should leave off the boilerplate for now, especially since we already have a troll warning at top.--MONGO 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that boilerplate was a real blight on the page and that no one would want this place to reflect that kind of attitude. No offense PCH, we all get pissed off. SkeenaR 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who initially posted here. I probably didn't make it clear, but my meaning was that there should be a section on theories and conspiracies regarding the attacks, as currently, this article does not show any other ideas shared by people who do not believe the "official" report. Honestly, it's difficult to decide what to put on an article without discussing the article itself. Sort of like trying to make a guide book for computer software without knowing what the software does. You've just closed off any chance of extending and improving the article, which is the whole point of this website isn't it? I admit my first post was a bit vague on what was intended, but it doesn't help if you don't give me a chance to edit it and refine it to the quality you oh so desperately desire. 213.120.158.229 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check out the article at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 08:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are ways to add information and improve the article without creating a zoo-like atmosphere. Find the correct spaces in the article to add appropriate verifiable info. SkeenaR 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists
Is up for review at. Thought all of you would want to know. Morton devonshire 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Credible Academic Sources
For a credible academic source, see the works of the eminent Professor Noam Chomsky over the last decade.

I must also add that i have viewed this discussion and i have come to the conclusion that the article and this discussion are, as one contributor has pointed out, heavily influenced by U.S. opinion and not by verifiale facts. Unfortunately, I have also come to the conclusion that it is useless attempting to rectify this article as it will bounce off minds that are incapable of processing critical ideas. However, it would be unfair to pejoratise individuals who are utterley and hopelessly repressed by the illusion created by the very anti-thesis of that which they believe they stand for. It is often true that the slave protects the interests of his master over his own freedom.

The events of that day were despicable and cannot be condoned by anyone, but this should add impetus to the drive for a free and true representation of facts that have been both scientifically and critically assessed.

I ask only that you read, think and criticise ALWAYS. Look to your own integrity and not a websites guidelines - rules are created by men and women just like you.

TDM-UK August 2006


 * What a stirring speech. Was that just a rhetorical exercise or do you have some specific addition/subtraction that you think would improve the article? Levi P. 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Crucial & credible academic (re)source can be found here:

http://www2.nea.org/he/heta05/images/2005pg119.pdf#search=%22911%20academics%22 Lovelight 14:21 CET

Thank you, Levi, for the compliment. I apologise for any excessive rhetoric; i obviously spend far too much time with politicians.

I do indeed have numerous additions and subtractions that i hope will improve and neutralise this article. However, in order to present a case that is academically sound i am in the process of systematically analysing the language in the article according to two established methods within contemporary Linguistics. For now, I will state those two methods so that readers can assess their validity. The first is Stylistics, also known as Critical Linguistics, and the second is Critical Discourse Analysis as pioneered by Professor Norman Fairclough.

I hope that you will understand that this exercise will take a considerable amount of time and that you will be patient until i can present the results.

I want only a neutral and objective account that satisfies not only the U.S. public, but also, the rest of the global community.

In the words of one of your senators - "I'll be back!"

TDM-UK 14:22, 26th August 2006.


 * You boys are a bit out of time, honestly, why don't you leave the books for a second and check what's on the Google? This is far beyond damage control; this will be completely rewritten, with logos and facts… Lovelight


 * Professor Noam Chomsky  is not credible  87.118.100.99 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I get your point Lovelight. This would be a waste of my timeand so i retract my claim to offer an analysis. It's akin to teaching chimpanzees Mozart.

As for this Chomsky "is not credible" statement, well i'm afraid that the media isn't credible either and certainly not frontpagemag.com. Oh dear!

9/11 Timeline
I'd like to get a consensus on the addition of two links that I think are very important (I did not see either under "External links". One is Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline, which is very heavily detailed, and was turned into a book. Another is 911Timeline.net, a similar project. Are both biased? In some ways, yes. But the information contained on both sites make both links highly essential for anyone wishing to do more research on the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.--Fightingirish 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden
It's official: no evidence for bin laden being involved: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm] --Striver 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Prison Planet is an official source? Fascinating. Tell us more. --Golbez 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to agree, Alex Jones is more of a smoke bomb then a beacon or in the words of skinner (OZ?), there is no need to turn this into ZOO… That being said, I do wonder on what true facts is current form of article based? Do you have even one source which proves motives and responsibilities so boldly stated in the editorial? You have none. On other hand there are more then valid sources which cast more than reasonable doubt on the big picture. One of these can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

PS Let me remind you that few days ago video came out on CNN where Bush clearly stated that there is no relation whatsoever between 911 and war in Iraq. Abiding to these volatile times, that stream was available for very limited time, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It is the nature of information on Internet to multiply when repressed so here is the truth, plain & simple: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/40631/ --Lovelight 6:28 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)

Get back on track here. We're talking about Bin Laden and 9/11, not Bin Laden and Saddam. Spread your FUD elsewhere. --Mmx1 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm right on track here, you see we have a false cause, therefore we have a false war, if one removes false cause, he will also remove false war(s). This sort of deduction is called logic, and there is really no way to fight it… So where were we? There is no proof for any nonsense stated in the article, there is no proof of a plain that supposedly hit Pentagon… and there is nothing honest in there. This event has global repercussions, and as soon as we remove false information you may be sure that I'll illustrate all of these, completely… So let me repeat that question above, where are the valid sources that prove connection between Osama & 911? I have to read your FUD here whether I wont to or not. So give me one valid source. One. --Lovelight 6:50 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)


 * They're in references 23-32. --Mmx1 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, nothing but lies there… One can easily dismiss every single one. Well, in a few days perhaps (or visit my page, beware of vandals though)… In mean time I would like to show you a riddle... Say, you know Christiane Amanpour, watch how this name get's new symbolism, as we slightly dissect it with logos. Christ+Aman+pour=lies. Now, I see that you are a hunter, so I'll just take it for granted that you know what Aman is? As far as associated press goes, the name itself implicates some form of connection. I always point to discussion here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3094... with such things in mind I honestly cannot consider FOX to be reliable source. Firstly, there's obvious danger of rabies, second, it is nature of the fox to be cunning… and as I see & hear people trust that source in same manner they trust prison planet… Whether you find these thoughts interesting or not, fact remains that all those references are refuted for a long time now (haven't really checked, but I would bet there are some related references in that unofficial part of the story, you know conspiracy?), there are voices calling for independent investigation and article should reflect that… that’s all. Keep in mind that official story is the poorest and dimmest of them all… whether administration simply failed to prevent attack or actually inflicted that "plastic knife wound", they are not to be trusted. As a military man I think that you'll enjoy this: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01, you'll also feel some rage… I promise:)… --Lovelight 7:44 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)


 * This is almost WP:BJAODN. almost. --Mmx1 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but please, do understand that I coupe with my feelings every day, I do tend to be overwhelmed by unnecessary death, pain and suffering… honestly!

You see, I know that you won't approve, I see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1963391; to be deeply related… --Lovelight 8:07 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)


 * And this: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ this should really become a classic knowledge; it clearly shows that fundamental flaw. It shows that the road ahead holds nothing but death and destruction. Such course of events is unsustainable, irrational, illogical, and very, very dangerous… --Lovelight 10:27 AM, 29 August 2006 (CET)


 * I know that it's a bit out of place, nevertheless I find this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5286458.stm to be well timed & well placed…

Interesting flight numbers
It is interesting to note that the flight numbers follow a pattern. Starting with number 11 (flight AA 11), adding the digits of individual flights, it goes with 13 (flight UA 175), 14 (flight AA 77) and 12 (flight UA 93), where flight UA 93 is out of sequence that got delayed by 40 minutes at Newark airport. Otherwise, it would have hit after flight 11. Clearly, the master mind team has a taste of mathematics and they are at large.

Number of dead
Why don’t the terrorists count as deaths? Of course their death (as opposed to all others) was intentional, but after all, they are also human beings. 92.104.107.212 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The hijackers' deaths were part of the tactics of the attacks, not a consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Reports on the Virginia Tech shootout included the gunman in its victim count. I think the hijackers should also be included in the death statistic. Unless, of course, we don't know how many hijackers there were. Micasta (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally agree, the deaths of the hijackers are still consequences of the attack. SGGH ping! 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The gunman case counts as significant precedent to include the attackers as deaths. Strongly Agree due to precedent. Annihilatron (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)