Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 23

-

Jack Kerouac "On the Road"
Don t know where to put it, but beautiful hint to 9-11:

"Dean had a sweater wrapped around his ears to keep warm. He said we were a band of Arabs coming in to blow up New York." (page 112 - Penguin Edition. For all others: At the end of the second chapter in Part Two of the book.) 88.73.57.205 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Weasel Words
Invoking a comparison of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 to those associated with Pearl Harbor is very misleading, as the latter has much less general evidence and support for its claims. It should be removed to keep an NPOV. Sloverlord 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not allow any conspiracy theory nonsense to be put in this article, and will do whatever it takes to prevent the victims of this Islamofascist tragedy from being insulted by liberals. Cerebral Warrior 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Including reporting them to local law enforcement agencies I presume... Cripipper 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, was it terrorism or fascism, because they are two very different things? Terrorism is a small group of people.  Fascism implies a state sponsor.  I believe the evidence points to fascism, but I'd drop the "islamo" part.  You also speak of victims... well, it's my nation too, and I feel that I'm a victim, and I feel that this article should reflect objective reality, not your idea of what will make me comfortable.  And liberals?  That words lost all of its meaning?  If you are taking charge of the edits here, then that would account for the sorry state of this article.Slipgrid 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Local law-enforcement agencies scan the internet for Islamos anyway, so I don't think my intervention will be needed. Cerebral Warrior 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * News flash, it's not illegal to disagree with the 9/11 story. We aren't Canada or Europe. Yet. --Golbez 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

have u compared your country to canada... we have civil rights you cant even fathom, 1984 bullshit does not exist here, we dont have massive federal agencies observing our every move,we have REAL equality, the right to travel to cuba, not to mention the fact that we dont get slammed as anti- canadian for disagreeing with the prime minister...you guys wasted your money on an army that cant even get its job done in iraq, and now your up to your eyeballs in debt

i suggest you learn a bit more about canada, a very similar, much more liberal version of youre own great country, albeit much smaller


 * Yet it's illegal to deny the Holocaust there, which is what I was talking about, which you seemed to miss completely. Not surprising. --Golbez 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And Canada's larger than the U.S. Jpers36 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

-- I wondered why the information available at the below link has not been mentioned on this page. The people on the list include highly respected members of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, USA Army Generals, ex-CIA employees (and many others) who all openly, publically and vehemently voice their belief that the official 9/11 story is deeply flawed (to say the least). If these people's beliefs don't count as anything towards the 9/11 conspiracy theories, then what on earth does count?

'''Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Critics of 9/11 Commission Report'''

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This web site is a collection of their public statements. It should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this web site.

Listed at the below link are highly critical statements about the 9/11 Commission Report and/or calls for a new 9/11 investigation publicly made by over 50 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


 * The 9/11 Commission Report has its own article. Peter Grey 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think a mention of the people listed in the above links should be added to the U.S. Government response - 9/11 Commission Report section on this page as well as to the 9/11 Commission Report's own seperate page. The highly critical statements about the 9/11 Commission Report and/or calls for a new 9/11 investigation publicly made by over 50 of these senior officials is clearly deeply relevant to both of these pages. So is anyone going to add them?


 * Still no feedback regarding adding this relevant criticism of the official 9/11 report? If this page contains statements from what the Republican party's official report claims happened on that day, then it should also contain the significant criticism that has been publically voiced by members of that very same political party. If no one is going to add this important information or respond to this suggestion with a satisfactory answer for me then I say that this page deserves to have the banner denoting that it is biased and not neutral.


 * If this page contains statements that are in agreement with the official 9/11 report but does not contains the statements that are from senior levels of government (Republican & Democrats), army and ex-intelligence agency employees which severely criticize the official 9/11 report, then clearly it is a biased and unbalanced encyclopedic page. [10:21am - tuesday 24th Oct]


 * I agree that this article is as of this point a clearly biased version of 9/11, rubber stamping the official government conspiracy story about goat-herders in caves masterminding the attacks. In order to improve it, there should be further expounding of the questions that are raised by the occurrence, i.e. why did NORAD stand down, why was building 7 demolished, why did the head of Pakistani intelligence wire the alleged lead hijacker funds etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SamuelReyes007 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 7 November 2006   (UTC)

October 11th Events
Stop deleting the information! edit it, don't delete it!


 * it has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.--Tbeatty 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, what has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? This looks like censorship. This is the talk page.  Some one post something here, and we all get to decide if it has something to do with the article.  You are not the only one who gets to decide.  So, I stand by the original poster... Stop deleting the info! Slipgrid 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction should not expand on detail
Proposed change:


 * Nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers crashed two of the airliners (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (WTC 1 and WTC 2). A third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) was crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

--PTR 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions sound good, though I think the following needs to remain included:
 * "Both towers collapsed within two hours, followed by WTC 7 later that day."
 * Aside from that, I have added your change. And, I put commas instead of parentheses around American Airlines Flight 77. --Aude (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WTC7 was not directly part of the attack, is can be confusing because it is not previously mentioned. It can be in body, but does not belong in intro --JimWae 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that. --Aude (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you imagine that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 "was not directly part of the attack?" Slipgrid 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the attack actually happened, whereas the demolition is a mth, and 7 WTC was not a target of the hijackers. Peter Grey 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the word "alleged"? The fact is that there was no criminal investigation that proved what happened on 9/11, therefore the government's story is only one conspiracy theory out of about two, which are: (a) 19 Arab terrorists with box cutters did it, and (b) The US government did it. I have no problem with people picking one theory over another, but I do have a problem with unproven theories being stated as if they are proven facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.191 (talk • contribs)
 * Theory (a) is definitely true. Theory (b) is nonsense. Could someone please block this user? Cerebral Warrior 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, never remove someone else's comments unless they are simple trolling and insults. You are walking on ice so thin, it's amazing it hasn't shattered. Second of all, we don't ban people for disagreeing with you. He's done nothing remotely bannable; unlike you. --Golbez 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comparing a 9/11 conspiracy theory to the actual truth is trolling, and it is an insult to Americans and the American government, not to mention the poor souls who were murdered that day. Cerebral Warrior 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the consipiracy theories are simply that. Conspiracy theories.  It is in fact trolling when you try to replace well established facts with unsupported claims of massive conspiracy. Rtrev 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, what sort of government would want to kill its own people and attack a building housing its own military staff. You cant compare these conspiracy theories to the obvious facts. Cerebral Warrior 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

why don't you google USS Liberty and see what your govt (LBJ) said when the unmarked Israeli jets were attacking the ship. He said he wanted the ship at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Happy to napalm and kill his own on the most decorated warship in the fleet. Does the President in that case represent the US Govt? Observer 25 October 2006


 * For the attention of 'Cerebral Warrior' ; in response to your question "what sort of government would want to kill its own people", the answer is a Government of The United States of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his Body of Secrets thus: "Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."


 * I can think of at least one sort of government. --Golbez 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is evidence, not plausibility. Peter Grey 10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.." This is evidence of willingness.


 * And willingness is mighty far from doing it, especially in such a media prolific age. Rtrev 13:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You two are clearly prancing around the issue, even when presented with evidence that is undeniable you still cannot find the grace or balls to admit you are wrong. This user 'Cerebral Warrior' asked what government would want to kill it's own people, I have presented proof in black and white that the USA government were willing to do exactly that in order to further their military objectives. End of discussion.


 * Perhaps it's not a case of users such as Cerebral Warrior or Rtrev not having the grace or balls to see this, perhaps it's more that they are afraid to face up to the reality that their own leaders are prepared to betray them.--Freakflag 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Government Response
This section begins "Within hours of the attack". Surely someone was aware that the planes had been hijacked before they crashed. Was this really the first government response? Kernow 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, Rumsfeld also gave a stand down order, NORAD stood down.

I think it is highly unfair that the other side of 9/11 is not being shown here, many firefighters, police and Americans no longer believe the official report.

And to be honest to look at ALL the evidence on ALL sides, to say it is 100% concrete is denial.

Something evil happened on 9/11, but I believe we dont yet know who or why it was carried out

Most Embarrassing Wiki Ever
There's not a NPOV; only the governments POV. The Responsibility and Motives section only gives the governments POV, with no evidence. How is a "1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden" related, and where's the evidence that shows it relates? If this is the "day that changed everything," then why are the only Long-term effects the Economic aftermath and Potential health effects? How about a section about the perpetual war? How about some info about this event being used as a reason to invade Iraq? Why is there such a limited amount of media on this page? Right now, there's four different movies in Google Videos top 100 about this day, and I believe they are all public domain videos. Lets add them! We have video of one plane hitting one tower; lets get video of all three towers falling! There's endless hours of video and audio that would be suitable for the media section. Why is the control of this article in the hands of a few, like Tom Harrison? Was Wikipedia meant to be used as propaganda? I only ask, because that's what it seems like it's being used for. Here's a list of about 100 basic and unanswered questions related to this event. I have only one question... why doesn't this article address any of these questions? Slipgrid 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same. However, it goes without saying that many of those questions are misleading.  Terms like "perpetual war" are POV, not "Economic aftermath".  I suggest you cut the crap and be a little more constructive. -Maverick 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, you don't like the term "perpetual war," then how about a section called "War on Terror." What would you call the hostilities sparked by this event, and why isn't it a subsection of the "Long-term effects?"  You want to know my POV?  It's anger, because this article is a farce. 71.72.236.245 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You say, "article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same," but what's the conspiracy article, and why does it exist? Both articles report a conspiracy.  Why do we need two articles?  Let's merge the two articles!  Or, is there really a conspiracy against the truth. We shouldn't allow two articles.  If you want to create a 9/11 Commission Report book report, then that's fine; It shouldn't go here. Slipgrid 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is it doesn't address them because most of them are unrelated to the events of that day and are thin veneers over attempts to insert dubious information to prop up widely discredited conspiracy theories. That is generally frowned upon here. Rtrev 21:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's generally frowned upon to string togeather terms like "discredited conspiracy theories," "thin veneers," "unrelated to the events," and "dubious information," without using any thought as to what they mean. I mean, which story includes "discredited conspiracy theories?"  A large number of Americans, and an even larger number of people across the world would say it's the story in this article. 71.72.236.245 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said, and well named section here. Raise that banner high up! The one which states that this article is fictional satire… lock it up, and let it stay locked until our amendments are implemented, and our questions answered… you vile conspiracy theorists yet have to produce that Boeing 757 whose tale section ricochet from Pentagon and cut support columns of building 7!;)… Lovelight 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Slipgrid, guess who's watching? Homeland Security! :-) So cut that anti-American crap before you get packed off to Gitmo. Cerebral Warrior 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is by far your last warning: Cut with the homeland security, "lol they're watching" crap. I banned you once for a threat that you said was a joke; the joke's over. Stop it, now. --Golbez 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry man. But I will remind you that what I said is not entirely false. Many countries do scan certain popular websites to prevent terrorists from using them as propaganda tools. I'm sure Wikipedia is one of those sites. Also what Wikipedia guideline have I violated by making my earlier statement about Guatanamo Bay? It wasn't a personal attack or a legal threat (I didn't threaten to pack him off to Gitmo). Cerebral Warrior 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's not false, that's irrelevant - you don't need to point it out every time it comes up. It's annoying and disruptive. --Golbez 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * People do go off topic on talk-pages. All I was trying to do was point out that blatant anti-American rants are hurtful and bigotted and hence must be avoided. Cerebral Warrior 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * People who were (and are) obstructing neutral point of view within this article are directly responsible for this… I remember those government warnings on this talk page well, and if someone was out of line here, then it's those peopling who put those silly banners on top of it all… Fact is, 911 already blew back, this damage control that we are witnessing here is nothing but pathetic try to avoid inevitable. It's like watching Bush, Rumsfeld, Dick or Rice traveling the globe, talking and fueling more nonsense, while they should be in prison or even better, they should be gently put to sleep… imho, of course… Lovelight 13:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Golbez, why is it that you reprimand me for my comments while letting Lovelight get away with his irrelevant rants? Cerebral Warrior 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not telling people they're going to jail for saying things. --Golbez 21:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant rant my plum!;P Isolating this event from global perspective is like writing while blindfolded… I tried to be as decent here as one could be, tried to implement small (rather then jumbo sized) but necessary changes in kind and polite manner… which all together turnout to be nothing but a waste of time. This talk page deserves no better, what is there to talk about? What is there to suggest and/or improve when dozens and dozens of well known facts were repeatedly answered with such well elaborated replies as Mongo's: "No thanks…". Pih… This whole backstage is like divine comedy, free will Vs. determinism… Well, Slipgrid put it really well there, so there is no need to repeat obvious... Lovelight 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Least I replied...but since many here completely fail to understand what an article talk page is about, not much more than "No Thanks" is really necessary.--MONGO 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Top image
This image has no source and was removed by OrphanBot: Image:WTC1 on fire.jpg Does anyone know what the source is? I'm thinking it probably is copyrighted, but I haven't figured out the source.

If we can't use that image, I'm trying to find alternatives.


 * 1) On the German article, they use Image:Twin Towers in fire - 911- Fema picture.jpg.  This is from chapter 1 of the FEMA report, figure 1-6, which has "OEM" as the author.  I think that's the NYC Office of Emergency Management, who's material I don't think is public domain.
 * 2) In going through the chapters, I see that FEMA notes the copyright holder/photographer, next to most photographs.  But not all, such as Figure 2-24, 2-26, 2-29 in chapter 2.  Perhaps this means these photographs are public domain, and are usable here?
 * 3) On Flickr, I found some photographs uploaded by Comerking that are marked as Creative commons by-sa, such as this.  I have seen these before.  But, I can't remember the source.  Perhaps these were taken people in a NYPD helicopter.  Or perhaps by Federal authorities?
 * 4) There is another set (creative commons by-sa) on Flickr, taken from more of a distance (from Brooklyn)
 * 5) Lower resolution photos available include a few taken by the National Park Service from Ellis Island.
 * 6) Public domain pictures from the Pentagon are easy to come by, such as Image:Pentagon taxi hit by lightpole.jpg.
 * 7) Here's the commons category, which aside from Image:Apicofwtc.jpg, includes mainly pictures of the recovery effort.

If anyone knows the source of the aerial shots, or the image removed by OrphanBot, it would be helpful. Or has other thoughts on what should be used as the top image? --Aude (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is in U.S. Givernment papers, brochures and their websites, if an image IS NOT attributed to someone outside of the agency, then the image is within the public domain. I'll search around as well and see what I can find.--MONGO 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought, in regards to the images in the FEMA report. Of what I've found so far, I think those are the best.  Chapter 5 of the report shows one of the aerial shots (noted in #3 above, in Flickr).  These are attributed to OEM, and not in the public domain. I'll keep looking and see if I can find anything else, but the image that OrphanBot removed looks indeed like fairuse and not suitable. --Aude (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These bots do fine most of the time, but I noticed one lately that was removing the capitalized article titles from text, leaving only the noncapitlaized wording and thereby forcing a redirect to the other article...I generally recheck bot work when I see this, but as you said, the image isn't probably suitable for use. I do wish we had more images or that some folks would be more liberal in allowing images to be in the public domain.--MONGO 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply pathetic: http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/wikipedia.html Lovelight 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re that article: hahahahaha... my favorite part is how when the mistake was corrected and the CNN list was used it is implied that Wikipedia (described as a singular malicious entity no less!) was "covering their tracks." I guess the author didn't know about history and/or talk pages.  Thanks for that it was really hilarious. Rtrev 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia hypocracy
when i called the Zionist terrorist, Begin, a "terrorist" i got warned by Wiki. When i referred to his attacks on the King David Hotel as a "terrorist attack" i got warned. But when Arab Muslims attacked us on 9/11/01, it is perfectly okay to to call a spade a spade.


 * You were not warned for calling Begin a terrorist, or for calling the King David hotel bombing a terrorist act. You were warned for interjecting opinions into articles. You woyuld have received the same warning if you had called Begin a statesman of the first calibre, or defended the bombing. The issue is not who you are calling what name, but the interjection of opinions.


 * Additionally, please sign talk page comments with four tildes ~, as you have been advised on your talk page. Justin Eiler 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This and all your other contributions prove that you must be one of those Minnesota taxi drivers... 82.230.180.185 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to enter 'Dust to Dust' to Multimedia list
In September 2006 the Sundance Channel broadcast an hour length documentary, "Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11." I wish to enter this into the Multimedia reference list. Dogru144 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there, took a look at that flick, and I've noted the relevance, you have my support… Lovelight 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Hey, you folks at the "Ministry of Truth" are bound to appreciate the fact that BBC is editing old articles to keep history in perspective, right?;)… brrr, shivers from my part… Lovelight 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility and motives section
This diff from 11:56, 26 October 2006 removed among other things the section on Responsibility and motives. This revert on 11:57, 26 October 2006 failed to restore it, so I put it back manually. Tom Harrison Talk 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy: Osama bin Laden is listed as the perpetrator and under the section Responsibility it says: "The United States government determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the attacks, with the FBI stating that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable." Then why if the evidence is clear and irrefutable don't the FBI list him as wanted for the Sep 11 2001 attacks on their own website at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm ? Apparently he is NOT wanted by the FBI for this very attack (the evidence didn't exist or hold up after all?) and hence he should not be listed as the perpetrator or responsible. Since the very source that said they had evidence now say they don't, we should replace his name with Unknown or at the very least put a question mark after his name when listed as perpetrator.


 * Failure to place every crime Osama bin Laden is wanted for on a wanted poster is not cause to state that he is not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Justin Eiler 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you then present that he was responsible when the FBI has made public that he's NOT wanted for this incredible crime? A spokesman for the FBI saying they have no evidence of his involvement in the attacks and therefore do not seek him isn't enough? Even Bush admits that he does not care about Osama anymore. Why would he do that if Osama was responsible for the death of 3000 US citizens? I was under the impression that Wikipedia seeks to present facts and not myths and conspiracy theories? I guess I was wrong. Ecke 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again--just because the September 11 attacks are not listed on the poster does not mean he is not wanted for that. The difference is that he has been formally arraigned for the embassy bombings--he has not been formally arraigned for the 9/11 attacks. Justin Eiler 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It says on the Most Wanted Terrorists page, that "The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."Kruegerrands 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think then that the lack of an indictment means that we have to follow wikipedia policyon this. This is a living person and it should list him as the alleged' perpetrator in the attacks. To say that it is irrefutable is misleading since the only reason it's irrefutable is that the evidence hasn't yet been presented. --Cplot 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV terms from the first two sentences of this article
The first two sentences currently read as follows: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced 'nine eleven') consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."

The use of the term 'terrorist' to describe the attacks adds nothing to the article except the opinion of the authors. I think everyone can decide for themselves if flying a number of loaded passenger planes into buildings constitutes terrorism.

Similarly, describing those who carried out the attacks as 'terrorists', weakens the article as it makes a judgement for the reader. The article on Hitler does not start by calling him a bad man, it just notes that he killed 6 million jews and the reader can make up his own mind.

This type of opinionated opening is in clear violation of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:WTA.

I propose an opening two sentences as follows: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced 'nine eleven') consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] gained control of four commercial passenger jet airliners."

The fact that the attacks were described as terrorist (for example by the UN) can of course be included but must be referenced and must be clearly listed as opinion and not fact.

Let's fix this because having a bad opening to an article calls the whole thing into question. Curtains99 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your proposal. We are having a very similar discussion on the Barack Obama page over his designation as "African American" and how to include his racial background in the article.  The crux of the issue is whether a label can be applied simply because it is used often by many sources.  I have come around to the way of thinking that in many cases it can per the WP guidelines.


 * Your analogy based on Hitler is flawed. Using "bad man" to describe Hitler is not the same as applying "terrorist" to the 9/11 suicide attacks.  That would be more like saying Hitler precipitated a genocide (which it does say in the first paragraph).
 * Using the term "terrorist" hardly reflects only the opinions of the authors (and you assume that all of the authors are of the same opinion... which they are not... this article was built by consensus just like every other one). The term "terrorist" is used in almost every description of the 9/11 attacks by major, reputable, verifiable sources including the United Nations, statements from many heads of state, and major news outlets, books, and reputable web sources.  Leaving out the term is arguably pushing a POV seeing the consensus that these were "terrorist" attacks.
 * I am not sure that it in any way weakens the article. It simply uses a designation that is definitely the most prevalent in describing these types of attacks.
 * You cite WP:WTA which shows you can use the term and presents arguments for and against.
 * There is definitely room for discussion as to the wording though. But I believe it would be against consensus to remove it and see no real problem with the inclusion other than in a possible rewording.  --Rtrev 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9/11 is inextricably linked with the words 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' in the Western world and opened the era of GWOT, terrorist threat levels etc. So, yes there should be a good deal of stuff about terrorism in this article but not in the narrative voice.
 * The definition of genocide has far more consensus than the definition of terrorism.
 * The article was built by consensus of English speaking authors predominantly from the USA and UK. While you are right that many verifiable sources described the attacks as terrorist, WP:NPOV requires that 'where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'. So here is an academic paper surveying opinion in Middle Eastern countries on whether the 9/11 attacks constituted terrorism . You can see that a majority of respondents in Jordan, for example believe that these attacks did not constitute terrorism. If you wonder why they would think such a thing, the answer may be further in the article where a majority of all countries surveyed held that it was OK to kill foreign civilians of nations that have occupied Muslim lands. If we leave the description 'terrorist' and we want to comply with NPOV, then we have to say that somehow the published opinion of millions of Arabs is not significant.
 * Again from WP:NPOV:'None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'. So the first line violates one of the core principles of WIkipedia. If you are one of millions of Arabs reading this article who hold the contrary view, how do you think the article appears? And how does the article appear to anyone who can separate opinion from fact, regardless of their own opinion?
 * Terrorist in included in WP:WTA as a word that is controversial or has multiple meanings. It states 'The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article'. The article then goes on to cite reasons in favour and against using the word terrorist, to indicate that the description is controversial. Curtains99 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As from the very beginning of our friendship, I must say how deeply charmed I am from this lovely terminology we use here. It is simply fabulous to see valid and important questions so closely tied with term conspiracy…But, to stay on target here… Terrorism? What is that? It sure sounds like something which is POV to the core, something which some think tank would be proud of… Well perhaps you heard about that old say, one which states that one nation's terrorist is other nation's freedom fighter? Lovelight 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Permenant Semi-Protection
This page has been receiving very heavy vandalism from anonymous and new users. I feel permenantly semi-protecting it might really help reduce the vandism, but then again, who knows? If anyone has a better solution, let me know. SilentWind 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

911 Press for Truth
Tom, would you please be so kind and explain why you removed that link from the article? I see that Path to 911 is there as a relevant reference, while we all know controversy behind that piece? In my opinion Loose Change (the most wanted and most watched documentary about 911) should also be referenced, would you folks share your thoughts about these issues…

Lovelight 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 911 Press for Truth
 * 911 Mysteries


 * External links do not belong in the See also section. Links to conspiracy theories should go in 9/11 conspiracy theories if anywhere. Direct links to videos at Youtube or Google video should be removed in most cases. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories? Wouldn’t you agree that there is world wide consensus on fact that official story is the greatest conspiracy of them all? Perhaps we should have some vote about this whole issue, just to see where we all stand? If you would be so kind to inform me how to put such notion in motion? For example I would like to see that banner which says that neutrality of the article is disputed (since it clearly is), how, where and to whom would I address such plea? I believe that vandalism would be suppressed if main article would decently point to the dispute we have here… Lovelight 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 911 Press for Truth would fit in the 9/11 Commission article. Peter Grey 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Motive
Part of the motive, which should be included, is the rejection of Western ideals, which the U.S. is the greatest symbol of. It the most powerful nation and is not Muslim. The terrorists object American policies in regards to the Middle East. They despise large influential country that is not run by Muslims or serve Islamic fundamentalist interests. They are radical Islamists who have been indoctrinated and have called for the "death" of America for many years. They blame the troubles of the Arab an Muslim world on the U.S. and West. They do not accept democracy. They hate the Western/American ideas of freedom of speech, press, religion. They hate the liberal attitude, for example, in terms of women, sex, dress, religion, gender roles, divorce, entertainment, and many others. They see the American way of life as highly sinful. They may have also wanted something to get the U.S. into war and wage jihad. --Shamir1 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a section for motive. It might help to have more opinions from different (and credible) sources, recognizing that all the theories are speculative, and any statements by the organizers are unreliable. Peter Grey 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1, what you call for including should not be included because it isn't the motive for the attacks. The motives have been expressed clearly for decades. As the article says, "9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."

And bin Laden has addressed the canard that you are pushing, "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden, February 14 , 2003 Osama Bin Laden Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

In fact, this is the same motive for the 1993 attack on the World Tradde Center. The motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building.  This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

Bin Laden has made the motives crystal clear. He explained it yet again in 2004: "You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children. "

And Bin Laden makes clear that the US will not be attacked if the US government stops attacking them: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." Bin Laden: 'Your security is in your own hands' Tel555 11:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this very important to take a look at Osama statements with scrutiny. What would be your propesed edit? For me, it shows exactly this that Osama used 9/11 events (prepared by him, or not) to defend his country. SalvNaut 12:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

9/11 article is unnecessarily opinionated, factually inaccurate &/or incomplete in parts.
1 )  AA flt. # 11 was compromised via their security C/P @ Boston / Logan's Terminal B, contractually operated by Globe Flight Services.   UA flt. # 175 was operating from Boston's Terminal C;  run by Huntleigh - USA Corp., also by contract.   The two flights targeting D.C. were flying from Newark Int'l. ( UA - 93 ) & Wash. - Dulles ( AA - 77 ).   Both of their C/P's were contracted by Argenbright Holdings, Ltd.   All four C/P's compromised were being operated by Contract Screening Companies that worked for the applicable airlines directly.   The ONLY oversight of these operations was Federal, under the FAA.   State Airport Authorities then had NO oversight authority over departure C/P operations !

2 )  Since the Airline industry was de - regulated by Pres. Carter, in 1978, the airlines had been permitted to "low - bid" their contracts for security.   Following the TWA flt. # 800 incident;  the Gore commission recommendations, in 1997, enabled domestic passenger "profile screening" ( At first, by 'manual flagging';  until the first CAPPS software was actualized, in 2000. )  --Mikemoran576 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)The Hart / Rudman Commission on National Security also preceded the 9/11 attacks.   Despite all this, 9/11 was STILL successfully executed in 2001 !

3 )  Several years before 9/11;  a Cessna airtcraft, flown by a "disturbed" pilot, crashed into the White House.   Since this incident, two policies were enacted :   1 )   The USAF permanently detached a flight of F - 16 Fighters to the U.S. Secret Service, to protect the White House from air - attack. 2 )  "Stinger" crews ( Two - man teams carrying Stinger shoulder - fired SAM's. ) were supposed to be permanently deployed to the roofs of the Pentagon, The Capitol & the White House ( This was THEN publicly - announced. ).  Where were these teams, on 9/11 ??

4 )  The security screeners @ Boston / Logan were shown an FAA security alert memo 1 week after 9/11, that included a xerox copy of a photograph of a disposable BIC lighter that had been illegally altered w/ a stiletto - style lock - blade.   This 'makeshift' weapon was found by the NTSB in the wreckage of UA flt. # 93 in Pa.   It was clearly breought on - board by one of the terrorists.

5 )  Airline Security Screeners, pre - 9/11, were "at will" contract employees.   Not only were they being paid ~ $1 over minimum - wage ( On average. ) but they had no legal pretections of any kind !  They were considered "overhead" by the airlines;  existing primarily "for show", so that the airlines could feign adequate security to their paying passengers.   This is NOT just an opinion but, was widely accepted by both the airlines & the FAA.   The FAA had a "dual - role" mandate;  to promote safety & security of aircraft but, also to promote the airline industry.   The ATA was supposed to be responsible for airline promotion ( Commercial & Regional. ) but was also responsible for Screener training programs.  Both of these issues were clearly "conflicts of interest" !

Mikemoran576 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Mike. None of this is really directly relevant to the article itself. Several of your points are opinion that would require substantive documentation from reliable sources, others siply are not relevant (such as the Stinger teams--a Stinger cannot stop a 747 beyond a certain radius, and I doubt Stinger teams are actively on White House deployment when the president isnot in residence). Justin Eiler 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just some math changes on the timeline.
The tower collapse section, 4.4.1, refers to a CNN timeline (cite number 85), stating the south tower fell at 10:05. The article using the cite says 9:59.

Plus, the number of minutes is not computed correctly, since 9:03 to 9:59 (or 10:05) is not 58 minutes.

Not as major as all the heated discussion here, but a simple pair of fixes to improve overall accuracy.

I leave it to the folks with correct data to confirm the tower collapse time, and to then calc the minutes off that correctly.

CodeCarpenter 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your comments here... The CNN timeline  was published on 9/12/2001 and seems to contain some inaccuracies.  I've added a new reference, which is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere.   In all, the time from the first plane to the collapse of the North Tower was 102 minutes, hence the title ("102 Minutes") of Jim Dwyer's book which documents the events. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories"
At what point is something a conspiracy theory? Where does Wikipedia draw the lineDictionary.com defines a conspiracy theory as:

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Aren't both sides equally conspiracy theories?


 * Why not check Wikipedia itself?


 * A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Advocates of conspiratorial views claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.


 * (formatting removed due to quick cut'n'paste).


 * I don't think the al Qaeda-based explanation of facts matches this description. Al Qaeda's actions, while secretive in the planning stages, became both "overt activity" and not "behind the scenes" upon execution, as Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the events. Jpers36 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is believed by some that Osama bin Laden claimed responsiblility for the attacks. The attacks on September 11th were certainly a conspiracy. We have been told by some that only someone as powerful as Osama bin Laden could have coordinated such an attack. This is one of the theories advanced for the conspiracy culminating in the events of September 11th. There are other theories that cast doubt on that theory, suggesting that it may have required greater power than even bin Laden's.

I think the word ’Contending theories’ would be a better name for the subsection currently reading ’Conspiracy theories’ That way it wouldn't confuse readers who will likely understand these are all rheories about a conspiracy (whether from the 9/11 commission, FEMA, the FBI or elsewhere. Also, I think the subsection title ’Conspiracy theories’ as it used there violates the NPOV policy.

Proper terminology for illegal, premeditated killing
There is no justification whatever for constantly using the word "kill" and its variants ("killed", "killing") when the precise words are "murdered" and "massacred". The latter words are objective, fair and accurate, although there's nothing wrong with using "kill" for variation and to avoid constantly repeating "murdered" or "massacred." The truly odd thing about descriptions of 9/11 is that the word "killed" is used too much when these words work better by being more exact.

It might be objected that "murdered" and "massacred", while accurate, are unnecessarily emotive, but I can't see how, regarding a subject like this, a few words would introduce emotion -- the emotion is in the subject itself and the emotion inherent in the words only adds drops to that ocean.

So I've changed "killed" and even "fatalities" in a few places to "murdered" and (as a noun), "massacred."

Incidentally, the use of the words "murdered" is absolutely no violation of NPOV. There's nothing subjective about it unless there's an assertion that the deaths occurred accidentally, and no such assertion has been made. Nor does the word itself carry an accusation to anyone in particular.

In general, it's better to be precise with language and better to call something what it is rather than use vaguer, more abstract words when we know the more vivid words are accurate. If nothing else, it helps us think a bit more clearly.Noroton 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Complete 911 Timeline
I was about to add this site (The Complete 911 Timeline) to the external links, when I noticed the following:

This raises two questions for me? Getting back to the link; It is a very detailed—and very well documented—timeline of events leading up to the attacks, and is required reading for Richard Clarke’s class at Harvard. Based just on its level of confirmable detail (every entry has a link to the original source, all of wich are mainstream), I think a link should be included in this article. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the basis for this warning on top of “Editing of this article by unregistered or new users is currently disabled.”?
 * 2) Is this common on Wikipedia? (I have not seen it before.)


 * Hi there, just to share with you, this particular page is frozen in time, it is in status quo for years now… IMO, those warnings at front are not going anywhere since article is obviously biased, and as such it is attacked as soon as Ministry of Truth lets it guard down. Of course, the link you provided should be enlisted, good luck with it… Lovelight 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes... of course here on Wikipedia, we have some administrators that know very well the only truth and they can properly decide without blinking how this article should look like. This link (and 9/11 Press for Truth) should be here as it is a part of common, notable, verified knwoledge about events of 9/11. SalvNaut 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed 'substantial conspiracy theory'
I have noticed that the main Wikipedia page on 9/11 refers to it as "a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals". As you all know, there is a very substantial conspiracy theory doubting this simple explanation. Because the article does not have a section on the conspiracy theory, I believe that the listed explanation should be listed as a theory rather than facts. Otherwise it can be extremely misleading. Everyone is entitled to their point of view and beliefs and the article should cater for both sides of the story, the conspiracy theory and the "suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals" theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron beauchamp (talk • contribs) at 12:55 on 21 November 2006


 * 'Is the Earth flat? Some people think otherwise, so it should be listed as a theory rather than facts.' --CalendarWatcher 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the conspiracy theories have been demonstrated to be "substantial". A substantial alternate theory, based on evidence instead of misinformation and speculation, would be another matter entirely. Peter Grey 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "Conspiracy Theories" subsection
I made changes. Please revert only those you don't like and discuss. The part about Jewish conspiracy is described in 9/11 conspiracy theories. And it's just true. No-one ever from 9/11 truth movement supported any of these.(sorry for a rude description of my edit - I wanted to write more but pressed enter accidentally) SalvNaut 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People have spent a lot of time on this article over the years and are sensitive to wholesale changes without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Please discuss your proposed edits here, make a case for them and see if you can get others to agree or come to a compromise.  --PTR 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you make the case, then too? What do you disagree with exactly? I say - it is improper to point to Jewish conspiracy without remarking that the movement does not encourage it, It is to the contrary. I'll restore again and pleas point out which things you dislike. (There is no rule in Wikipedia that you shouldn't make edits without previous discussion. This not some major edit.) SalvNaut 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to discuss about Jewish conspiracy accusation? We already have a case of Steven E. Jones being wrongly accused by ADL of endorsing Jewish conspiracy theory. It was completely untrue - they've took his one sentence and made big halo of it. There are some stupid people who support 9/11 on basis of Jewish conspiracy - you find such pp everywhere. But it is completely unjustified to picture 9/11 conspiracy theory as based on Jews accusations - it is black propaganda, that's all I can say here. SalvNaut 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job Golbez... what would be your sources for linking 9/11 truth movement with Jewish conspiracy theories? Instead of fixing my grammar mistake you rv everything... No discussion... SalvNaut 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You made a statement that someone is doing something. That requires a source. We do not make unsourced statements here. --Golbez 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all explained in 9/11 conspiracy theories article as all other statements in this paragraph. We also don't make unsourced, unverified accusations, that is we do not put statements under some sections to create (false) impression of a nature of a topic. Do you agree? SalvNaut 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the one breaking consensus, it is on you to discuss changes to a well-edited article like this. I will not justify my edits further than I have, it is your responsibility, not mine. --Golbez 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are your only arguments?? I discussed it - why would argument by ADL be the one deciding here? ADL job is to give statements like that? Why is the voice of the 9/11 Truth movement, ones who are accused of anti-semitism, doesn't count here? Stop with this well-edited article, please. It's no-argument. I bring this topic, and it hasn't been discussed before. This sentence is unjustified false-POV creation and it goes. I'm making my change as you did too much too and not provided arguments. SalvNaut 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please
Ok, let's try again. I insist on the edit proposed by me. Someone would like to explain to me what is the rationale behind including a statement by some organization (ADL) in this small paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories? This of course creates a notion in reader's head that 9/11 conspiracy theories are about "same ol' thing", while obviously they are not, and people from 9/11 truth movement have been rejecting this ideas strongly. For example, David Griffin, K. Barret and others are members of MUJCA (Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 911 Truth). Jim Hoffman wrote articles exposing Jewish conspiracy theories within 9/11 movement. S. Jones couple of times rejected ADL's accusations, by saying his words were misinterpreted, response forced by radio host (this case was very ugly, I discussed it on Steven Jones talk page) and that he prefers to stick to science. I'm not an editor who prefers to delete material, I understand that ADL statement might be appropriate to few of the people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy. That's why I proposed this edit, and I stand behind it:


 * While according to the Anti-Defamation League, conspiracy theories about Jewish or Israeli involvement are "a core part of the belief system of anti-Semites and millions of others around the world"[80], a fraction of conspiracy theorists claim there was an Israeli or Jewish involvement in the September 11 attacks. Others within the movement have worked to debunk their claims and to expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.(here could be a ref. to MUJCA, Hoffman's or others articles, but it's in the main article already)

Other option would be not to mention ADL at all, and leave it to the reader to read about it in 9/11 conspiracy theories article (it seems Ok to me, too). The way it is now creates false impression of reality and it's defamation itself. I'll make this proposed edit. Please answer with arguments, if you don't agree. SalvNaut 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You insist? Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't have to respond to anyone insisting.--MONGO 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I insist? I used word "please", too. But again... it didn't work. You don't want to provide arguments but become hostile. Is RfC my only option here?

Thank you for your understanding and your edit Tom Harrison. Still, I don't see how it is justified to put an opinion by ADL in such a small paragraph about 9/11 CT. What would be sources for that (except ADL of course)? The problem is that 9/11 Truth Movement is not documented well in mainstream media. And from what was documented (Loose Change, article in Times, Popular Mechanics, etc) I see nothing that would justify immediate connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories about Jews. Any opinions here? I'm leaning forward complete removal of this remark (all is described in the main article) SalvNaut 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Stable version"
BTW: What is this that ppl revert edits basing it solely on "previous version being stable"? Shouldn't we learn to listen to arguments each time? Newtonian physics was stable for some time, too. Holocaust denial was stable for some time after WWII, and few cared to discuss proofs for it. History is echoing.... SalvNaut 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
Excuse me for barging into others' business, but Golbez and SalvNaut seem to have an edit war. Could you two please discuss before doing this revert war?  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to this edit war, I have locked the page temporarily until whatever the problem may be is taken care of. Please contact me when you wish for unprotection. // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And they are blocked for violating WP:3RR any ways Jaranda wat's sup 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional pages
Is it possible to remove the edit protection to include a link to the September 11 2001 fifth anniversary page?
 * Just as a note, I added a proposed deletion tag to that article. See the page for explaination. Rx StrangeLove 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serious administrator abuse
I just began reviewing this page recently and find some serious abuses of Wikipedia policies. First, the discussion page (from the significant portion I've read) indicates very much dissent from the supposed consensus about the article. I see in the history moments where edits are made and then quickly reverted with the claim that a consensus has been built. Then I look at the discussion history and there's clearly no consensus.

I also do not see much in the history that would justify the extreme measures taken to lock this article down. When compared to other articles there is really not that much vandalism or edit wars at the times when it's unlocked. Sure these disputes happen, but they happen everywhere on other articles and those articles routinely move out of protected status.

Rather here it appears that a few editors have parked themselves on these pages and try to keep others away from editing. I even see evidence of administrators abusing their privileges. For example, there is an edit by JoshuaZ to remove comments from the discussion page that contain no personal attack, but rather expressed the frustration I can see many editors are experiencing with these abuses. Please understand that the Wiki concept can't work this way. It has proven itself elsewhere, but this article is not working as intended. If these administrators want complete control over the content of their web page, I suggest they start a blog.

I was barred for supposed disruption (violation of the 3 revert rule) of this page for making a few edits on a small subsection of the page. I discussed those edits prior to making them here, though the reverting editors simply reverted them without any comment on this discussion page (again citing the "stability" of the article). Keep in mind that the sole purpose of Wikipedia is not to stabilize articles. This has to be balanced against other policies and guidelines. The edits I tried to make did nothing to changes the facts presented. Rather I was simply removing words and phrases that were pejorative, unencyclopedic and in violation of the NPOV policy. Those reverting my edits cited nothing to support their reverts, but rather again used pejoratives to back up the use of pejoratives. Though I have been blocked (even from appealing my blockage), I thought I'd begin some discussion here about what appear to me to be inappropriate behaviour by admins and a wish to treat this article as not part of a Wiki. I'm not sure what can be done about this behaviour. It's similar to the pegasus affair where an editor sought administrative status simply to exercise arbitrary power over other editors. However, my hope is that we can find some impartial admin who will somehow facilitate making this article into a part of the Wiki community. --67.175.134.6 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (blocked cplot)

NPOV Dispute
From examining the history here, it appears that a small group of people have worked to ensure this article reflects only a certain POV. Legitimate edits are immediately and repeatedly reverted. Pejorative language is used to describe alternate POVs or more frequently alternate POVs are simply removed from the article.

Much of the article reads like an ABC docudrama and is unencyclopedic. It fails to cite sources or to present particular positions as such, but instead describes theories, accusations and allegations as if they are facts established by God. The article also fails to provide verifiable sources for many of the claims made in the article.

THe POV slant of the article combined with the failure to provide verifiable sources combine to make this article one of the worst cases of NPOV violation I have encountered on Wikipedia. I would recommend the editors and administrators squatting on this article begin to work with the dissenting editors to improve this article and make it meet Wikipedia's standards: especially those of NPOV and Verifiability..

I will try to elaborate on the issues through an examination of the article's history, but as I look through the discussion page and the article's history there are repeated examples of squashing alternate views from this article. Often time these alternate POVs are cited, verifiable and often widely held POVs, yet are excluded nonetheless..--Cplot 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some examples

 * Pejorative use of "conspiracy theory" to encompass all other POVs about the attacks on September 11th.
 * Claims made without citing the source. For example "nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners." should separate the parts that are undisputed from the particular theories about the event. Planes were hijacked. It should be followed with something like: "The US Federal Bureau of Investigation] believes ..." (this is just one of such numerous NPOV slips in the article)
 * Views of the 911 truth movement and other widespread held positions are completely excluded from the article.

agree

 * There were numerous polls conducted which show that majority of Americans do not believe official account. That is why Cplot's arguments are even stronger. All claims should be clearly sourced to make it possible to the reader to determine who makes them. Rationales for other claims, inclusions or exclusions (like the Jewish conspiracy remark I discussed) should be discussed and/or sourced. This is not about "conspiracy cruft" - it's about general disbelief and recognition of facts and myths. SalvNaut 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Reading below, and through the archives, one only finds attempts to keep the government's POV, with the main reason for not calling it POV being that they're after money. I try to keep an open mind on this, and there are many suspicious things that contradict the government's findings, but there is also a certain body of evidence that supports the government's theory. If we want to call the article truly neutral then we need to provide alternate, or even, contradicting, points of view, regardless of how many people believe that the government's POV is the only "right" one. When I'm done here I'm going to get an RFC, to get a better idea o what should be done, unless someone beats me to it.--Acebrock 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment What a relief to hear another voice of reason, thank you Acebrock. SalvNaut 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Keep in mind that it has only been an hour. Normally an NPOV tag should be expected to stay of for days. In the case of this article (after reviewing its history), I would say more like weeks. It's a bit silly to start counting votes now, but it's really ridiculous to claim a consensus on the topic after a few minutes elapsed. Do these editors think we're all paid to watch this page? In the US it's the Thanksgiving holiday. Many editors are spending time with their families right now. It's only the die hards that are around right now. Within a few weeks a doubt we'll see any consensus for maintaining this NPOV and Verifiability violating article in this way . --Cplot 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

disagree

 * 9/11 "Truth Movement" is an effort by a bunch of swindlers to make a buck by spreading falsehoods all over the web...they are morally and ethically corrupt and their "evidence" is not based on WP:RS or WP:V and are therefore not useful for an encyclopedia article. The entire notion of a government cover-up and related conspiracy theories has zero basis in fact.--MONGO 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Your opinion about their ethics is inappropriate here (and you don't have sources to prove it). There is a group of suspicious people in 9/11 Truth Movement, but they are minority. That makes you completely wrong here. Stop spreading defamation. SalvNaut 17:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mongo, you misunderstand the role of a Wiki encyclopedia article. It is not our task here to assess the truth or motives behind different positions on the attacks. Rather we are here to write an article that presents the various POVs that hold sway about these events. Many have written on this topic and the article does not reflect that. But instead the article only reflects the views of one of the many groups.
 * If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is reality, and then there is the tripe being promulgated by the fringe conspiracy whackos. The fringe whacko theories even have their own articles for some unknown and befuddling reason but they need not repeat that garbage here.  We could add paragraph after paragraph about controlled demolitions, missiles, aliens in Roswell, and the connection of 9/11 to Operation Gladio.  It doesn't make it any more legitimate.  People come to read about what actually happened, not whack job conspiracy nonsense.  --Tbeatty 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:You love to blend "fringe whacko theories" with legitimate theories, don't you? If your understanding of these matters is this shallow, you should restrain yourself from editing this article. Thanks. SalvNaut 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which do you consider legitimate? I blended no such thing.  --Tbeatty 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to spread conspiracy cruft to real articles. Thanks. Weregerbil 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a article for the conspiracy as well only like a paragraph is needed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These theories are given the proper treatment in this article, per WP:NPOV. We do provide a forum for the theories at 9/11 conspiracy theories, with a brief summary here and link to that article. Nothing more is needed in this main article, which also needs to summarize all other aspects of the attacks and various sub-articles. --Aude (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The same could be said of the Government's theory--Acebrock 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. First, it's not the "government" theory.  It's the account that has been presented in media outlets, worldwide such as Al Jazeera, Times of India, the CBC (Canada), and major media outlets in the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and China (list could go on), as well as the United Nations.  I've yet to see a reliable source that presents conspiracy theories as facts. --Aude (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The point is there are other credible views of these attacks than are not presented in the article. That's what makes it an NPOV violation. Not only have those views not been given due weight, they've been given no weight at all. Saying that "we covered other POVs in s small section pejoratively entitled 'Conspiracy theories' does not give weight to the many credible views and issues posed about September 11th. In fact it does the opposite. It suggests that no one need take anything seriously except for what a few minority editors here think. --Cplot 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no credible alternative views - no dancing Jews, no holograms, no hidden explosives or secret missiles. There are conspiracy theories: social pathologies commonly associated with major events. We use summary style, linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and we link to 9/11 conspiracy theories from the template. That is due weight and to spare. Tom Harrison Talk 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, credible views will air on C-Span's Book TV this weekend. The September 24 KPFA event from Berkeley, CA, 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Featured speakers: David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Peter Phillips, Ray McGovern, EST PST Friday Nov 24th: 4:00pm 1:00pm; Saturday Nov 25th: 3:30am 12:30am, 10:00pm 7:00pm


 * The conspiracy theories have their own page. After five years I would think this would be done and settled.  As for claiming uncited, I see 105 entries in the references section now.  I see someone just put the NPOV tag back on the article.  Please, take it down and respect the long established consensus of the community. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a conspiracy theory article. This one should have a short paragraph, as it does, and point to that article, as it does. --PTR 23:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is NPOV. The alternative explanations are correctly called conspiracy theories (at least I can't find a better name for them), and the article links to a page describing them in embarrasing detail. No change is needed. --Regebro 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (no way to claim consensus either way)
Tbeatty, there is clearly no consensus yet on the NPOV. How could their be there's only been minutes since the tag was placed on the article. It would normally take 10 days or so to make such a determination. In the case of this article I would imagine it will take much longer since so many dissenting editors have been chased away by a poorly behaving core group of editors. --Cplot 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see talk archives. This has been discussed for years. Please do not add conspiracy cruft here, this is not the place for it. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page archives and the history of the edits. And I find the NPOV violations even more disgraceful. It's now time for the editors here to take seriously these alternate POVs (without pejorative dismissals, which is mostly what I see in the archives). Some waiting time must be given to an NPOV dispute to let these issues and grievances be aired. This is how a Wiki is supposed to work. Again, if you don't wish to write an article that reflects all the relevant points-of-view then I suggest you start a blog. --Cplot 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is hijacked. Of course there is NPOV dispute but a group of editors decide there is not. I think we are heading towards RfC here... SalvNaut 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A little perspective
The problem comes from trying to put the dissenting opinions (i.e. conspiracy theories) on an equal footing as the version supported by evidence. By and large, the conspiracy theory version are rejected entirely in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Typically they contain errors of fact, misunderstandings of the mechanics of solids, and/or unreliable evidence.

Now, there certainly is a particular zeal in removing unencyclopedic material, and occasionally it may be to excess, and in those rare instances where legitimate points are raised, the edits may be rejected without sufficient discussion. But that problem is manageable. Unfortunately, many people in the US are so frightened by the idea that their government was unable to stop terrorists that they find comfort in believing anything else, no matter how implausible. There is an whole folk mythology, not to mention an industry of disinformation, which challenges the conventional account, and there are editors who, innocently or maliciously, try to give the the mythology undue credibility. (It escapes me why someone who sees a discrepancy between an encyclopedia and rantings on a partisan website would immediately assume it's the encyclopedia which is wrong.)

But this is not truly a good-faith dispute regarding point of view. The issue is not what emotions people have or what narratives human creativity can fabricate, it's what the evidence supports. The conspiracy theory stories are, at least so far, not supported by evidence. Peter Grey 20:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: There is evidence which supports them, I encourage you to take a real close look, if you have time (just look closely at the case of WTC7 and molten metal beneath its rubble, then check 9/11 commission account, NIST account - their work is unbeliveably far from good science, even engineers associated with NIST confirm that(i.e Glenn Corbett)) . Unfortunately, no summary of this evidence is reported in mainstream media (oh, you might want to watch C-Span this weekend, see my previous post). It's easy to comment "reasonably" on those things from high-up, but when you bow down, take a close look... SalvNaut 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, Corbett is not an engineer and is not associated with NIST and he confirmed nothing. He's a fireman. As far as I can tell, he lobbied the NIST to investigate and the NIST does NOT support any whack nutball theories and they are a principle target of these fringe groups trying to sell their stuff.  --Tbeatty 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What?
 * GLENN CORBETT is a fire captain in Waldwick, New Jersey, a professor of Fire Safety at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, a member of the New Jersey State Fire Code Council, and a technical editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, the nation's 128-year-old fire service trade journal. He was on the committee advising the National Institute of Standards and Technology on its investigation of the WTC disaster, and came to a critical assessment overall, although he fully supports the hypothesis of collapse due to plane impacts and fires alone.
 * New Civil Engineer condemned NIST for not releasing their computer animations saying its parameters were pushed over limits. Fire Engineeringjournal "has good reason to belive that FEMA report was half-baked false". Kevin Ryan pointed out hundreds of inconsistencies and flaws in "art of making science". SalvNaut 00:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. He's not an engineer, he's a fireman.  Good for him, though, for supporting the reality that the collapse was due to fire and plane imapcts alone.  Tbeatty 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet, lack of good secondary sources does not allow us to change this article diametrically and it's not my intention. But when I tried to change one small defamating thing it took a lot of energy and nerves. SalvNaut 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable, credible evidence supporting the various conspiracy theories. The supposed "evidence" has been assessed and found to be unpersuasive, if not outright false or irrelevant. Most of what I've seen could be refuted with one engineering textbook. Peter Grey 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Assessed by who? Found to be unpersuasive by who? Where can I read about it? Where is molten metal evidence refuted or explainded in a way according to official theory? Where is sudden outburst of molten metal, with white smoke plume, from the side of WTC just before collapse explained? NIST has thrown some FAQ without even making any research into their answers. Where are zinc and barium anomalies from dust study explained? Where is the style of the collapse of WTC1&2 even analyzed ?(not in NIST report). Where is WTC7 report? I could continue... but I'm not sure if there is a need for that. SalvNaut 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try these. If you cannot tell which sources are legitimate, perhaps this is not the right article for you to contribute to. Peter Grey 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is legitimate? What is credible? Is it always the same as "true"? I made a lot of study into these theories. Many other scientists, politicians did too. Applying science leads to only one overall conclusion. Please be careful when you back yourself up with "legitimate" sources, not with arguments. SalvNaut 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Too much of this discussion is in the form of vague generalities and trying to describe the truth. The discussion should be around what are the various theories (including the only represented theory right now) about what are the political, economic, cultural and physical processes that influenced and were influenced by these attacks. It's not relevant whether one editor or another thinks that someone's research into this is bunk. The point is we have to describe those sources views nevertheless. More importantly, the article as it currently stands represents the views of certain sources as the truth rather than citing that view in accordance with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Clearly there's a difference of opinion here with no clear consensus. What we need to do next is work together to figure out what's needed to fix this very broken article and build a consensus rather than just insisting one's already there.

Again, we're not trying to decide who is crazy, wrong, misguided, stupid, or naive. Were trying to write an encyclopedia article that describes the subject and attributes various viewpoints to the authors who hold those viewpoints: whether that's NIST, FBI or whomever). Right now the article fails to do that on many accounts. Clearly I think we could get agreement on certain facts that none of us would dispute. Beyond that, we have to start attributing positions to who's making them and not just state them in the NPOV violating way as if its just an undisputed fact. I don't see any reason why we can't at least come to that agreement here.

Finally, I ask those who keep removing the NPOV template to stop doing that. Give it a little time for the discussion to take place and a real genuine concensus to be reached. A NPOV template is not meant as an insult, it's merely suggest that some editors may be unaware of other significant views on a topic. --68.30.31.232 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is a specific error in the article, or facts where there is legitimate disagreement, that can be discussed. But wishing something to be true is not a NPOV dispute.  Reality and fantasy are not two equal sides of an issue.  This talk page (and its archives) have established consensus on suitability of sources. Peter Grey 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reality and fantasy? Consensus? Peter, it's time for you and your boys to leave Neverland. You can easily exit via vault of Building 7, that tiny wabbit whole to wonderland down at Pentagon, or you can simply fly away carried by pixie dust, just like flight 93 did… Didn’t you hear chimes ringing? It's time to turn that page… since neutrality of this article is disputed from here to eternity, appropriate notice should be posted at the entrance post. Vandalism and article bias are quite different categories… Lovelight 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only is Captain Hook not a terrorism expert, he a fictional character. Peter Grey 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that the consparcy theories have a large following here are some google results: 9/11 Pentagon missle strike gets 702,000 results, 9/11 controlled demolition gets 620,000 results, and 9/11 government involvement gets 1,110,000 results. Also Popular Mechanics tried to disprove these, showing that they do have some sort of mainstream following.--Acebrock 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also angels are real 23,700,000 results, Elvis lives 1,500,000 results, aliens probed my ass 386,000 results. Weregerbil 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pleas... if you use Google, do it correctly. "angels are real" 10,900 (angels are real, by the way), "Elvis lives" 197,000 results,. SalvNaut 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that a full third of americans believe that te terrorists had something to do with 9/11--Acebrock 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute that the conspiracy theories have a pop culture following, that is why they justify their own article. This article, however, is about the actual events as supported by evidence. Peter Grey 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When Americans are asked "how often does the Earth revolve around the Sun: once a day, month, or year", 20% say once a day, 13% say once a month, 47% say once a year, 20% say it's a trick question: in reality the Sun revolves around the Earth.
 * Yet our article on the Solar system is not composed of 53% alternative theories. I think this article too would be best served by having as little on the alternative theories as possible.
 * When asked which is smaller: an electron or an atom, 56% say atom. The articles on atom and electron do not give equal time to this point of view.
 * Some other things Americans believe: 78% believe in angels, 68% devil, 25% witches, 31% astrology, 51% ghosts, ...
 * Peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. There are things that are best not decided by an American popular vote.
 * Keep this article about reality, and put peoples' beliefs elsewhere. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well this example is sort of stupid but interesting, as this question was indeed very tricky - simple answer is that they both revolve around their center of mass, the more advanced answer is that both experience chaotic but stable (for ever?) movements due to solar system gravitational field.
 * So as you can see, the answer populated by mainstream media, repeated by most of "enlightened" ones isn't true either. Be humble when judging reality, will you? SalvNaut 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (btw: can you give a link to this study?)
 * Anyway, let's get to the facts. The devil is in the details. SalvNaut 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, center of mass was never the question, orbital period was. But thanks for playing anyway, regardless of any and all nitpicking, obfuscation, and missing the point by a few parsecs. Weregerbil 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, have it. My point was that "The devil is in the details" and question was ill-posed: "how often does the Earth revolve around the Sun".SalvNaut 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll Posted?? The devil is in the details?? whatever,...Weregerbil's point is well stated,.... Peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. There are things that are best not decided by an American popular vote.--146.244.138.215 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more on that. Still, the devil is in the details. SalvNaut 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputes
There's quite a few disputes going on here, so I've full protected the page. Perhaps a nice short outline of what specifics we have would be nice? One of the concerns I've seen is that of NPOV, so perhaps specific paragraphs could be listed below neatly? Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits
sourced with: ^ "Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001.
 * On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[37]
 * I think it should either be sourced better, or be removed. On the day of attacs there were numerous claims (6 airplanes hijacked etc...) which turned out to be false. (the same goes to Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article) SalvNaut 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But Osama has admitted to masterminding the event...the news reports about more than 4 planes proved false and there is no reason to bother mentioning it in much detail.--MONGO 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Osama firstly rejected, then finally admitted (btw: admit is not a proof of complicity from the formal pov). But... what does it have to do with "communications that pointed..."?? Who said that there were such communications? Media? Some goverment agency? I would like to know, or know it's just another myth as many. SalvNaut 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point? CBS news said it..it is cited...has CBS news said that someone blew the buildings up? What myths are you talking about? I simply love the 9/11 truth movement ...there right on the top left of their "truth" based website is a DVD that is FOR SALE...yes, folks that's right...for only $15.00, you can BUY yourself some truth...as I said, swindlers trying to make a buck. Buyer, beware.--MONGO 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please stay on the topic? Do you also know that all of those DVD's are available for free? You can download them if you want. Buing DVD is a form of donation. My question was why something that CBS reported is considered to be true?
 * Thanks to that I also assume that you wouldn't mind sourcing here Paul Tomson's The Terror Timeline as it is composed from mainstream media reports. Good. SalvNaut 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Terror Timeline" is based on some facts and some myths...it is a conglomeration deliberately designed to mislead....and getting back to the 9/11 Truth Movement...the link from "Improbable Collapse" form the upperleft of thir mainpage takes one to a page that clearly states...
 * "In addition to your purchase from the e-store, please consider making a donation directly to 911truth.org. Your financial support is needed so that 911Truth.org has the resources available to sustain this important work. We can't do it without your help. Thank you! You can make a donation here:"...so it isn't "free"
 * there may be another link somewhere on that website to a download page, but that is not available form the main link to that the DVD. It's all about making a buck off the deaths of thousands of people.--MONGO 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course... many peple said on tv that someone blew the buildings up. Here you go (from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center):
 * On the day of the attacks, there were reports suggesting explosions and secondary devices. Several journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives   and some experts made similar suggestions in the days following the attacks.


 * Ha ha...thanks for the laugh above..short excerpts from audio and video with primary scope of the entire dialogue cut out to only support the argument of controlled demo...note 3...just some guy talking to BBC saying he heard explosions...of course he heard explosions, that's what happens when a wide body jet hits a building...what would one expect to hear? Birds chirping?...note 4...same deal as above...so what. note 5...who said what...devices in the building...who said this aside from the reporter...who planted the "devices"...just a snippet that has nothing to sink your teeth into...note 6...all the guy is saying it was planned...there is zero indication who he says planned it...zero...just a snippet of a small section of the entire dialogue. I guess for some people it's simply easier to believe that some huge group well organized are the only entity big enopugh to pull off such a huge amount of destruction...maybe it provides comfort to those who have trouble believing that a vast amount of damage could be the result of a limited number of terrorists.--MONGO 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to disturb reality around you. Guy in note 3 said he heard explosions "much much lower". Anyway, something in similiar tone could've probably been said of CBS report about communications with Osama - you know how those journalist bastards are - they grasp every sensation. That's my point here. SalvNaut 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OH, pleasant...the reality problem is the fact that these are just little exerpts of the entire conversations...so no way of knowing what their full intent was by their arguemnt..it's that simple. Explosions "lower" could have been any number of things...but without proof of controlled demolition, we don't reference in some youtube video link that gives only a snippet of info. The facts of the case are that Osama has admitted to masterminding the events of 9/11. The reason the FBI wants him for the embassy bombings is due to matters that pertain to the ability to adjudicate him better as an international terrorist.--MONGO 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant discussion
sourced with: ^ "Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001.
 * On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[37]
 * I think it should either be sourced better, or be removed. On the day of attacs there were numerous claims (6 airplanes hijacked etc...) which turned out to be false. (the same goes to Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article) SalvNaut 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone is aware if this fact found it's place in 9/11 commission (ommission) report? SalvNaut 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This was already answered above so asking twice is disruptive...don't be disruptive.--MONGO 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalvNaut (talk • contribs)

Mongo, stay on topic. SalvNaut is clearly trying to fix these serious NPOV problems. You cannot simply say "well the article reflects my POV so I've asnwered you". One suggestion would be to restate this as: "CBS News reported that on the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.' This way it makes it clear and verifiable. A reader can verify that CBS reported this. A reader cannot veify that US intelligence agencies interecepted communications. --70.8.139.192 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First off...get a username...secondly, Osama admitted to being the mastermind. I don't care if the CBS news issue is removed, but we're not going to alter the facts to fit some POV that Osama had nothing to do with the event, when the preponderance of evidence indicates he did. As far as "serious" NPOV problems...what...shall we have the article become full of conspiracy theory nonsense, or stick to what is provable? There is no POV issues, except from those that want to believe the impossible...that was addressed above.--MONGO 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Provable? I don't think that that's in wikipedia policy. Verifiable, yes, provable, no policy that I've seen. The conspiracy theories are verifiable, they aren't Original Research, and they can be presented in a Neutral Point of View, so for the most part that argument is moot--Acebrock 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That there are conspiracy theories is a fact....that the theories are based on fact is the issue...they are not based on facts and hence, in accordance with the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy, they get a passing mention and a link to their own article under appropriate titles.--MONGO 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahoy mate, good to see you up and runnin' ;P Lovelight 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I quote WP:NPOV NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It's a prominently held view that 9/11 was caused by the government, as shown by google results. Also I quote Jimbo:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 * many of the conspiracy theories meet criterion 2, not 3 as you seem to believe. A full third of people is a significant minority, and as such it is currently unduly underweighted--Acebrock 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theories are opinion based...we don't reference opinion based nonsense to accodate your POV. I am well awre of the undue weight clause and it doesn't matter how many people "think" the government was behind the attacks or anything like that...the fact that it is not supported by the verifiable evidence is the reason such nonsense is relegated to the appropriately named daughter articles. It is a violation of the undue weight clause to include them here. They are mentioned and linked...this has been disucussed with POV pushers of nonsense for years now and the conspiracy theorists have brought zero new evidence to the table to refute the known facts.--MONGO 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * who says that the government's story isn't based on opinion? The causes of autism article is based on scholarly opinions. And the extreme male brain theory section is based purely on opinion, yet the opinion of a reputable researcher, and apparently a number of people believe it. Also it's the Christian's opinion that they will be raptured away, the only proof is in one edition of the bible. And cite one policy that says that there has to be evidence to have something included in an article. If one third of americans believe that the goverment had something to do with 9/11 than it's notable enough to recieve more than a blurb--Acebrock 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some statistics. Apart from that, do you folks remember the initial reaction of Osama? He said: "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"… it was on Al Jazeera, as well as CNN. Lovelight 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo wrote: "First off...get a username...secondly," Mongo do you have no regard at all for what Wikpedia is trying to accomplish. Everywhere throughout Wikipedia there are users who take NPOV seriously; who take verifiability serioiusly; who take no original researcy seriously, unlke you. And many of those who make valuable contributions to Wikpedia do so annonymously: another tenant of wikis. Again, if you don't like the idea behiind wikipedia, then don't participate. But please don't come in here and insist Wikipedia be like Fox News or the New York Times. Just go participate in those insitutions if that's what you're looking for.

Secondly, Osama bin Laden is a living person and so we must be careful to adhere to Wikpedia's policies on that. There has not been any indictment of Osama bin Laden on this: let alone a conviction. Most of the evidence that I presume exists has never been aired in a court of law. Now I believe Osama bin Laden had something to do with these attacks, but that doesn't let me (or anyone else) run rough shot over over Wikpedia policies and guidelines. We're here to write and encyclopedia: a wiki encyclopedia. Join in that process or just recuse yourself. Looking through these dicussion archives I find a lot of evidence that you're here to disrupt and not contribute.

Now that it's clear that there is not a concesnsus among editors, it's time for us to figure out a way to make this artricle meet Wikipedia's standards. There are so many problems in this article it's going to take a log of work. Your attempts to shout down every editor you don't agree with only makes it that much more cumbersome to fix the article. --68.30.46.228 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish you luck POV pushing in this article...and don't tell me to go elsewhere...how dare you! All I asked you to do was to get a username...you'll be much more likely to have your efforts here treated with respect if you create a username and use only that when you contribute...that is simply the way it works on an article such as this one, whether you like it or not. Osama has admitted to masterminding the attacks...that is about as clear as it can be.--MONGO 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Admitting to "masterminding" is orthogonal to being guilty of masterminding. Don't you remember 80's/90's when afer each terrorist attack numerous terrorist organizations claimed responsibility? Anyway, I'm sure that people connected with Osama had something to do with 9/11 - question is what exactly, where did the money come from? etc.
 * Getting back to the point again: Changing this sentence to "In the evening of the day of attack CBS reported that....,which hasn't been confirmed later." is a good proposition. I already made some research into this and couldn't find nothing more about it? Has anyone found something? We don't want to spread disinformation, do we? SalvNaut 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What I've found so far is this report about communication intercepted betwen Osama and his stepmother on 9th of September. So... who knows what CBS report was about (foreknowledge?). Maybe it's not a good idea to use CBS report from the day of attack as a source? SalvNaut 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

editprotected}} -- done SalvNaut 21:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[37]

Please remove this unverifed statement per arguments above. We are not here to repeat everything what media says. This sentence should be at least clarified with "On the day of attacks CBS reported that...." but even then, I see no reason to include it. There were numerous false statements in the media on that day. Or it could be sourced much much better to explain who, when, who intercepted, etc. I've only found info about Osama and his stepmother on 9th of September. SalvNaut 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A new source has been presented - very good. The problem is that there is not a word in this source about Osama bin Ladin. Only about "interception of telephone conversations between jubilant terrorist supporters" and from the article it can be read that those were other terrorist cells. Please, stay strict and sharp minded, and if you want to have it here rephrase it appropriately (to whoever made the edit). Replacing "Osama" with "members of Al-Qaeda" or something similiar. Don't you think it's stupid that the article, at its present form, states that Osama called hijackers on the day of attacks, while even FBI admits that they do not have enough proof to pursue Osama for 9/11? SalvNaut 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworking the article so that it follows Wikpedia policies
First, from looking at the history, I think many of the vandalism problems were simply caused by a failure of editors to compromise and strive to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. So I think one of the advantages of working out a true consensus here so that we can unlock the article and have it join the greater Wikipedia community.

Second, as has already been mentioned scientific surveys indicate the official story is only one piece of the description this encyclopedia article should address. Dismissive arguments suggesting the public is just stupid or misguided or mentally defective are not relevant here (unless you want to cite someone who makes these arguments; again no original research here). Here's a list of sources discussing the waning confidence of the worlds population in the official story. Keep in mind that the last piece showing the views of New Yorker residents reflects community with quite a significant proportion of eyewitnesses to the attacks and also a high proportion of people directly effected by the attacks.
 * Polls Show Drop in Assurance Since the Attacks of Sept. 11
 * 9/11 Polls Find Lingering Fears in New York
 * Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
 * Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

Third, one aspect of the NPOV problem with the page is that (as mentioned above) it fails to describe the posiitions of the advocates of one particular theory as just that: advocates of one particular theory. So, for example, the article says:
 * 9/11 "consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists"

intead of saying:
 * "Consisted of a series of coordinated hijackings of four commercial jetliners which were subsequently flowin into New Yorks’s World Trade Center and the headquarter of the US military: the Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia. The FBI believes 19 islamic extemsists associated with al-Quada and Osama bin Ladin were behind the planning and execution of this attack"

The first example reads like a novel, The second reads like an encylopedia article. This is only an example and I'm not weded to this wording. However the entire article is filled with these NPOV problems.Fixing passages in this way will also facilitate including other cited views of the attacks (as well as cited crticisms of those views).

Fourth, I'm including a list of sources that support what many of the dissenting editors — a majority by my count of recent discussions and edits — believe should be included in the article. These sources all meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. There may be counter arguments that also criticize these pieces, but those counter-arguments need to be cited in verifiable publications and not simply crafted as original research here on the discussion page. The David Ray Griffin books are largely secondary sources so make ideal sources to cite here on Wikipedia.

Fifth, the use of the term "conpsiracy theory" is simply perjorative when used to characterize the positions taken in these books. They know more theorize a conspiracy than the views of the official account (theorizing that 19 hijackers under the umbrella of a poowerful worldwide organization know as al-Quada coordinated the attacks). So using pejoratively is inappopriate in the article and here in the discussions. Using it to describe only some of the theories of the conspiracy (in the non-pejorative sense) is confusing and misleading for readers.

So with the scientific surveys, the preponderance of verifiable sources and what looks like a significant number of wikipedia editors seeking to fix these NPOV problems, we need to get serious about that discussion. This means we have to stop arguing about whose wrong, false, stupid, misguided, mentally deranged, etc. We need to focus on crafting a discussion here that shows the genuine disagreements by the various parties weighing in on this tragedy. As the NPOV policy states:

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. (highlighed portions to underscore the misunderstaniding about NPOV represented in the discussion thus far)"

Perhaps we could start another sandbox article here on this page (or a linked page) to begin to fix the problems. Then when we reach a genuine consensus we can move that article to the main article. In the meantime we can work on the most egregious violations of NPOV and make the article read like an encyclopedia article rather than an historical novel (it is some nice prose however, I don't want to mess that up).

Verifiable sources that represent a significant view excluded from the article:



















--Cplot 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you say is good and reasonable, but the probleme here is that we have two standpoints. Both standpoints obviously thinks that THEIR standpoint have all the factual support, although evidently only one of them really can be. So what do you do to solve that? One of the POVs must be factually incorrect, but we can't agree which one that is. If you let both POVs have equal footing, then the article becomes POV. The article needs to be NPOV, that is reflect what is the generally accepted majority view.
 * One solution made in this article is to have the majority view, and put the large minority view into a second article, linking from the first. Do you find that like a reasonable solution? --Regebro 10:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Two standpoints is part of the communication gap here. There is an assumption by some that this is an adversarial political or metaphysical discourse, operating in an information vaccuum.  But this article describes historical fact, and what little there is in the way of opinion or speculation is limited to credible experts.  Alternate interpretations that have already been proven inaccurate are peripherial to the subject matter. Peter Grey 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure no one would like to rewrite 9/11 conspiracy theories to here. But this article in present form makes no mention about certain facts or discrepancies - it's difficult to discuss about it in general. Each should be looked into individually. I agree with using proposed sources in certain cases. As we are into the sources - Mongo, what would be your source to claim that The Terror Timeline is not appropriate? (you once accused it of being full of lies, while it is made of media reports - why would Paul Thompson lie in an attempt to gather information?) SalvNaut 11:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Each should be looked into individually. This has been the point all along. The article has been vetted and fact-checked, but of course errors are still possible. So identify them, and they can be corroborated or corrected.  Errors are not a NPOV dispute. Peter Grey 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I oppose here is repression of other reputable views by scholars, researchers, politicians - take this movie Oil, Smoke and Mirrors for example - this is a good example of different approach to the events of 9/11. Whether it's true or not it could be noted because of notability of proponents. Think what you want, but those are former highest rank politicians, experts etc. SalvNaut 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the repression of other reputable views. I also oppose the repression of notable views (as you mention later). The views of the mentioned movie are indded notable, even though they are not reputable. So these views should not be repressed. Are you of the opinion that these views are being repressed? --Regebro 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * History of this talk page shows clearly, it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of a fact. Lovelight 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarbro writes: "one of the POVs must be factually incorrect, but we can't agree which one that is. If you let both POVs have equal footing, then the article becomes POV. The article needs to be NPOV"

This again restates a misconception about NPOV I see here again and again. There are conflicting views on these attacks as with any historical event. We, as the edtiors of this encylopedia article, are not supposed to determine which one is correct. By doing that we make it reflect our own judgment and insert our own POV. The Wikipedia NPOV policy requires that we include the significant POVs. I think we would be hard pressed to determine which view was more widely held, let alone which one was correct. We would have to have information nonoe of us could possibly have to make an irrefutable judgement over which one was correct. So I encourage all the editors here to read the Wikipdia policies. In some ways it's liberating that we do not have to figure out who's correct. --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there are conflicting views. But this is not about a historical event to be compared with say, the resons behind the Battle of Hastings. When such as thing is discussed, everybody knows that it can on a certain level only be a matter pf sepculation. Therefore it is unfair to say that this is a debate about a historical event. It is a bout a FACT, namely, who is the instigator behind the attacks. And when you discuss this, only one answer can be correct. But yes, I'll rephrase what I said above. Only one of the viewpoints can be correct. Including both as equally correct does not make the article POV, but it does make it incorrect. And we don't want that either. Therefore, I suggest that we in the main article state the verifiable views, those who have credible sources and those statement that can be proven to be correct. We then,from the main article in a prominent place point out that there are many notable alternative views, and link to them, in a separate page. That to me seems to satisfy all requirements. The main article is factually correct and verifiable, but the alternative views are NOT repressed, but instead given a prominent place and full billing in their own article. Does that sound OK? --Regebro 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No that does not sound OK. That is something you could write on punditry blog: not on a wikpedia article. Yes we do have facts that are largely undisputed: hijackings of planes; collisions of planes into the twin towers; thousands of US citizens killed; military personnel killed at the Pentagon;; 3 buildings of the WTC complex collapsed; 4 other buildeings destroyed; fires raging in the WTC debris for weeks; further buildings around WTC needing demolition; a 16 foot diasmeter hole in the side of the pentagon. These are all facts the article can talk about without even citing sources (I imagine all the editors agree on these things).


 * Then we have analysis of these facts by various interested parties: as with any historical event. Weighing in on this if the FBI, CIA, bin Laden, G.W. Bush, the 9/11 commission, FEMA, NIST, Griffin, Jones, Tarpley, Hufschmid, Meyssan, Thompson, CNN, CBS, MNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC. One way to desribe the NPOV problem with the artcile is that it takes the POV you endorse as your own above (Regebro). It presents the views and analysis of some of these theosirsts of the attacks as if they too are undisputed facts. Then it leaves completely out of the article the views of the other theorists of the attacks. Again, please read the NPOV policy, and try to understand that just because an article adequately reflects your point-of-view does not mean it is correct or meets wikipedia standards. Again, the correctness of these views does not belong in our discussion nor should they be endorsed as "correct" in the article. --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me what you are now saying differs from what I said above, and what is not OK with my suggested solution? You are consistently talking an generics, and never specifying anything. You don't say what disputed facts are presented as undisputed. You say my suggestion is not OK, but you don't say what is wrong with it. That makes further constructive discussion very hard. --Regebro 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Grey, again look at the NPOV policy. Certainly we want to limit the historical facts, and "opinions or speculation" presented here to credible and verifiable sources. All of the sources I listed above fit that criteria. Their views are not reflected in this article at all. Verifiable sources and no original resarch are also important parts of Wikipedia policy. However, as with any historical facts, there are always multipel views, interpretations, weight and opinions about those facts. Currently the article does not reflect that. Instead it one-sidely treats certain historians and leaves completely out of account the others. That's precisely what a NPOV violation does. It would be good if an admin could go ahead and add the template back to the article so that other editors will be alerted to our need to fix this article. --Cplot 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please state which views you're referring to. The article is 11 000 words; just saying you disagree with it doesn't tell us anything helpful.  Do you mean a new viewpoint, which might possibly be legitimate and which merits discussion, or one of the conspiracy theory interpretations that are already known to be incorrect? Peter Grey 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat here again. The correctness of the views has no place in this discussion! Nor does the use of pejorative phrases such as "conspiracy theories". If you mean conspiracy theory in the non-pejorative sense well then what this article is largely and unavoidablely about is theories to tie together the facts that someone apparently conspired to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 and bring about significant loss of life and physical devestation. We are not interested here in the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of those theories. We are writing an encylopedia article that presents the various views (ivew that are sourced, verifiable and not views that are original research: like claiming something is correct or incorrect) --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) An encyclopedia is not a chat room. Readers of an encyclopedia expect narratives that are true, false, or of unknown status to be distinguished. 2) This is a summary article. All the points not present here are addressed in a suitable sub-article. Peter Grey 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter you're asolubtely right: Wikipedia is not a chat room. In chat rooms individuals try to convicen one another of the truth of their position agaainst the falisty of someone else's position. This is not supposed to take place here at Wikipedia. We're supposed to leave editors alone in the positions they advocate and instead respect the views of other editors and strive toward a narrative that includes the truths as understood by each of the various editors. This is true especially when so many editors here (I would say a majority) are complaining about the missing parts of the narrative. Second, its fine to provide a summary article. However, if you start out with a summary article that violates NPOV than you're more likely to end up with the linked articles also faling to meet Wikpedia's standards. --Cplot 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter,Regebro, others. Let's take one of things that strike me, that is complete lack of information about suspected foreknwoledge about the attacks. Please, just take a brief look on those two lists from 9/11 Timeline.. Those are ALL media reports about foreknwoledge, insider training (among others confirmed by a professor of finance at the UI). Recently Bob Woodward's book has been published in which he outlines the fact that so many warnings about 9/11 were ignored by Bush administration. Ok, so we have those media reports, books, other important people criticising. And where on Wikipedia can we read about it and it's implications? Only in 9/11 conspiracy theories article. So,... tell me... can't you see a bias here? It similiar with other topics like failure to investigate the events of 9/11 properly - those all facts we read here about, we can't be sure if they are 100%true, if they're everything we should know. Renaming the other article "9/11 contending theories" or 9/11 inconsistencies might be considered a solution... but then, it would have to be really cleaned up to represent real contending theories, not everything at once (including pure anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, which until recently was so boldly underlined here). This article needs major rewriting - not only this would be a whole lot of work but some editors were very opposing in the past to any changes made here. I, for example, don't feel qualified enough and don't have enough time to propose major rewrite. I suppose that others who might have had this in mind, were successfully repelled from here. SalvNaut 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Foreknowledge is relevant only when discussing what the government could have done to PREVENT the attacks, not when discussing who DID it. It is a logical fallacy to think that partial foreknowledge of an event is proof that you did it. I can't see how a discussion of foreknowledge would be relevent for this article no matter who ordered the attacks. --Regebro 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't say it's a proof. I say it is very relevant. I don't know how can't you see this. SalvNaut 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it isn't proof it isn't relevant. This is a factual question, not speculation. --Regebro 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You say official version is a proven fact, beyond doubt? ...According to their version "noone foresaw this kind of attack". So, you think that nothing that contradicts official version should find it's place in this article? (so you can read about foreknowledge only in 9/11 conspiracy theories article?). I don't know - one could imagine Wikipedia work like that - I just don't want to. The real question is wheather Tomphson's Complete 9/11 Timeline satisfies WP:N, WP:V. I does, I belive. SalvNaut 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to that. --Regebro 11:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those reports have been around forever. Al Qaeda was known to be planning and executing attacks for the 10 years prior to 9/11.  Insider trading was suspected immediately following the attacks and I believe the trading was Al Qaeda organizations looking to pay for the attacks with derivatives.  Here's the deal: 19 Al Qaeda hijackers crashed four planes on 9/11.  Certainly there are different recollection of events and the miniscule details as there always is when there are numerous eye witnesses.  But the basic facts are not disputable.  There is no credible "alternative theory."  There is no credible evidence of a conspiracy other than Al Qaeda conspiring to kill Americans.   There are no credible voices that claim the towers collapsed from anything other than as a result of the fully fueled planes crashing into them.  The Jews didn't do it.  George Bush didn't do it.  Iraq didn't do it.  The CIA didn't do it.  The owner of WTC 11 didn't do it.  The military didn't do it.  Bill Clinton didn't do it.  Mohammad Atta, and his 18 cohorts, however, did do it.  --Tbeatty 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a great example of what I have described above - this is how it looks like when you try to improve this article. With this kind of attitude, with ignorance of evidence like insider trading a day before attack, with jeering at different, opposing views, it seems completely pointless to discuss with you, Tbeatty. What you say are lies is untrue. There are credible voices, there is credible evidence to have another open investigation. Sorry, that's how it looks like. SalvNaut 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I already said that I recall hearing about the trading of short derivatives. I've read your evidence and all it says is that it happened and I had already heard that within weeks of 9/11.  Your source lacks the detail of who did the trading.  The obvious answer is that groups tied to al Qaeda did the trading and that is what I have read immediately following the attacks.  I don't dispute that al Qaeda would have invested in short positions on airline stocks if they knew a terrorist attack was coming.  That was their MO.  Why do you think thisis anything other than terrorist organizations using the attacks to finance their operations?  Occam's Razor should play here very nicely.  Please don't call me a liar again as I have lied about nothing.  --Tbeatty 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have quite developed theory about the trading. Well, that's good but I would preffer to hear this theory be investigated, while it wasn't. Traders were never officialy tracked down and official statement was that this trading was nothing unusual. Why should your theory or mine be important here? Be careful with razors, you can cut out some thing important possibility. I don't care what are official theories, yours, others, mine. I just point out that there are notable views on those matters which could be at least mentioned here with NPOV. Why in the world, a reader would have to look in the 9/11 conspiracy theories to gain information about foreknwoledge, or derivative training, or failure to track down the money for the hijackers? Anyway, this sort of "overall" discussion is rather pointless. I understand your pov and see it as pro-official version, you try to explain everything according to it - I don't see how this would be NPOV, and why should we do this here. I'll get back with some proposed edits in future. SalvNaut 12:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty mentioned Occam's Razor and you then stated "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important."...next time I see you suggesting bodily harm, I will block you indefinitely.--MONGO 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect some kind of cultural misunderstanding here. I was suggesting possible harm to knowledge. Physically I use Gillette, not Occam. SalvNaut 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The meaning comes across the same...and your efforts here do little to retract the comment. It was unnecessary and uncalled for.--MONGO 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if it wasn't investigated, what is there to mention? Leaving it as an open, false light, libelous charge that something nefarious may have happened is not very encyclopedic nor is it within policy. There WERE insiders and they were the al Qaeda terrorists.  Implying anything more is libelous garbage.  --Tbeatty 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all it's terribly incompetent to leave such thing not investigated - but I see that you swallow it without a problem. Why you keep repeating something completely unverifed? Why your opinion should matter? I would like to include opinions on this (to balance oppinions like yours) by Andreas von Bülow, Michael Meacher, David Ray Griffin and Bob Woodward's report on foreknowledge. SalvNaut 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Société Générale
A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue was quoted as saying:

“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This means what? Also, when adding a new section, do it at the bottom please. --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)