Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 35

Source
In the lead, the source for the act been done by "Islamic terrorists" is:. Can someone provide a quote of where exactly the terrorists are descried as "Islamic". Thanks.Bless sins 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This source by the CBC, about bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks calls al-Qaeda a "militant Islamic group." This source is used about midway through the second sentence of the article. There are probably many more sources in the article that describe the perpetrators as such. Mr.  Z- man  17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An asside... isn't it funny how when something like this happens, the group most closely linked to the people involved continue to question over and over again who actually caused the event? Example, Germany/Nazis and the Holocaust. So much "Are you sure we did it? I don't remember it... perhaps you could provide more evidence..." Anyway, sorry, just going off on a tangent there. --Tarage 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny? Hardly. It is essential that "the group most closely linked to the people involved" in the attrocities of 9/11 continue to blame the nineteen alleged hijackers and Muslims in general. They promised war in Afghanistan two months before 9/11. They had their troops positioned. All they needed was the pretext to avoid having it called a "war of aggression." Yes. You are right. There is a parallel with Nazi Germany. Hitler made a deal with Stalin to partition Poland. He needed a pretext for war. The SS, under a program called "Operation Himmler" staged two dozen raids on Germany, pretending they came from Poland. For the final event, the Gleiwitz incident, the SS dressed a prisoner named Honiok in a Polish uniform, shot him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz after they seized the station, broadcast in Polish for fifteen minutes, urging citizens of Upper Silesia to revolt against the Nazis, and then "took the station back." Honiok's body was PROOF that Germany needed to protect itself from state sponsored terrorism, and the next morning, three thousand German tanks, which were coincidentally, positioned on the Polish border, rolled into Poland, starting WWII. You can look that up on Wikipedia. Upper Silesia? That's where Prescott Bush, "Hitler's American Banker," set up factories, with slave labor from the concentration camps, to manufacture war materiel for the Reich. That's how the Bush family fortune was made. Funny? Hardly. We could improve the article by listing the Bush family's intimate connections to Hitler's rise to power. Source? http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
 * Wowest 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh stop it. This is not the place to discuss politics or to promote your ideas - get a blog. Does the article blame Muslims in general? No. Mr.  Z- man  13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I didn't bring up any "politics." Just documented, historical facts, nor did I being up any of my own ideas, except to suggest improving the article by pointing out the Bush family's connection to the financing of the Third Reich. If our readers have access to all the facts, they can draw their own conclusions, don't you think? Wowest 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You and the rest of us have a vasly different idea of what 'historical facts' are. You are spouting conspiricy theories trying to link the Bush family to Hitler, as if there is any corilation at all. Again, if you wish to soapbox, take it elsewhere. We're sick of it. --Tarage 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the book -- "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography." There is no "conspiracy theory" involved in pointing out Prescott Bush's Nazi affiliation, but he wasn't unique. A bunch of American companies including ALCOA, Ford, DuPont and GM sold weapons and war materiel to both sides of the conflict. The book is online. If you can't be bothered to read it, what are we to make of your opinions? Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we now took one source as the official 100% truth. Why... if I wasn't mistaken, we could also say the same thing about the 9/11 comission report! You can't have it both ways, my friend. The VAST majority of sources do not back up that 'Bush is a Nazi'. You seem to play free and loose with the lable 'conspiricy theory', throwing it onto anything you don't agree with, yet arguing with it when someone uses it on something you believe. I think, once again, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, you need multiple sources before barging in here with outrageous claims, and before you bring up something you feel is 'new', you need to check the archives. Nothing you have said is new, well sourced, or anything BUT soapboxing. Please cease this disruptive behavior. --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not discussing politics? From the bottom section: "Islamo-fascist? George W. Bush uses that term. It's part of the OCT. To be fair to high school students writing papers, then, this article should begin with the explanation: "This article contains only official propaganda from the Bush regime" Mr.  Z- man  04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to quote me out of context, there is nothing else for me to say, is there? "haha" you say? Interesting. The paragraph I was saying contained no political statements contained no political statements. Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling this article 'official propaganda from the Bush regime' implies that we editors who support the current form are somehow connected to the Bush regime. Can you say Cabal? Again, stop the soapboxing, stop the poorly sourced arguments, and stop the redundancy. We aren't asking much for you to atleast attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines... --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really annoyed by the fact that supporters of the official story quickly labels anyone who questions or doubts or realizes the vast amounts of anomalies, inconsistencies, coincidences (in fact too many coincidences.. if anything it is NOT a coincidence that there are too many coincidences) and improbabilites in the official account, as "conspiracy theorists". Do bare in mind the official account is ALSO a conspiracy theory - the official conspiracy theory. The word 'official' makes it sound sane and reasonable and logical because the word 'conspiracy' sounds crazy and something bordering on lunacy. Keep this in mind: There is a difference between someone who is doubting the official story AND someone who is advocating an actual ALTERNATIVE (as opposed to the official CT) conspiracy theory. In fact, alternate CTs are just simply labelled as Conspiracy Theories - further making the associations to alternate theories as very negative and something idiotic, while the official theory gets the label 'Official Story' and staying away from that dirty word 'Conspiracy'. If one were to doubt the official government theory of the aluminium nose of Flight 77 ripping through the steel-reinforced concrete of three rings of the Pentagon, then that is a justified stance. However, if one were to answer to someone who, upon hearing one's doubts regarding the plane's nose ripping through 3 rings of the Pentagon, then asks the doubter as to what hit the Pentagon then if it was not a plane that caused it, the answer to that question would be a conspiracy theory. I hope this stops people going around labelling anyone who has something to say that is contrary to the official story (having full of gaping holes) as 'conspiracy theorists'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful source, report on fox news about israelian intelligent agency and their knowledge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo --Englishazadipedia 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To repeat what Tarage said before his edit was reverted, YouTube is not a citeable source. I won't go so far as to remove the link, but it should be known that this shouldn't be used a source based on current Wikipedia policies (see Verifiability). --clpo13(talk) 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

References change
There are currently 181 cited sources on this page. This takes up lots of space, so I think that we should change the references section to a scrollable divider, an example is on the Michael Jackson article. All you do is add the following text.

What do you think? Noahcs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen that repeatedly undone because the scrollbar doesn't work universally, I think. --Golbez 03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hijackers
It says nothing in the article about the hijackers being muslim. I think that this is an important fact that should be include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.161.6 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point this seems would like such an important and obvious element of the events, but the means of exactly how hijackers over took the planes seems to be highly overlooked, in this article and the sub-sections.How exactly did they take control the planes?, simple brutality seems highly unlikely.They must have had something with them that they used to intimidate or threaten the passengrs and crew, but what could they have had that couldn't be stopped by security?.Did they manage to sneak some type of weapons or devices past the checkpoints?, they were already under closer watch at that point. Rodrigue 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The official story is that they used box cutters. This should be in the article or a related article somewhere.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And they brought fake bombs to scare the people on the planeJuanfranciscoh 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who coined the term 9/11?
I am sure the term wasn't espontaneously used by everyone all of a sudden. So, who coined the term? Shouldn't that be add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.243.77 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm... not sure how important 'who coined the term' would be. If anything, it would go in a trivia section, and Wikipedia has been frowning upon such sections lately. --Tarage 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since 9/11 is just the date it happened on, and not a totally new word, it would probably be next to impossible to determine who first used it to describe the attacks. If I had to guess, I'd say it evolved as shorthand from the phrases "the attacks on 9/11" and "the 9/11 attacks." But that's just my speculation, I doubt there is a reliable source for that. Mr.  Z- man  18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was probably a news station that first used it to refer to the attacks during the period when these were the only things on the news. It was probably used intentionally as a meme. --Xer0 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article not open to all to edit?
Why am I unable to edit this article? And why are so many facts overlooked? Sfkismet 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What facts are those?--MONGO 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many facts, and other statements of varying degrees of reliability, considered in the talk page archives. If something has actually been overlooked, please identify it. Peter Grey 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonymous editing has lead to vandalism. If you wish your edits to be seen, simply talk about them here(which is what you should ALWAYS do before editing such a high priority article), or register an account(Which isn't a lot to ask). --Tarage 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the decision to not allow to edit this very biased article preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add (in the section about wiretapping): The declassified "Transition 2001" report by the NSA reveals vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. The report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. News of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered in December of 2005 by the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.209.70 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to "Kamikaze" article removed
What occured on 9/11 had nothing to do with the suicide attack tactics of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in the Pacific Theatre of World War II. The kamikaze were uniformed members of the Japanese military. The kamikaze attacks rarely (if ever) targetted civilians delibrately. Despite their politics and choice of alligiences, they should not be put in the same category as the perpatrators of 9/11.

For the record, I am not Japanese.

Roswell Crash Survivor 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no link to Siege of Vienna?
The battle of Vienna on Sept. 12, 1683 was the key battle that ended 1000 years of Islamic armies trying to take over Europe. Osama Bin Laden picked Sept. 11 because he wanted to continue a holy war that has been going on for a long time. The date Sept. 11 was not an accident. Shouldn't it be mentioned? Glenn, Texas, Nov. '07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.81.252 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If you can find a WP:RS to the effect that bin Laden picked the date for that reason, list it here, and we'll certainly consider the information.  However, with so many dates in Islamic history to choose from, we'd be sure that the whatever date chosen would be near (note, it's the day before &mdash; the same day or the day after would be more appropriate for a continuation) some significant date.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For those who want a shortcut, the relevent article is Battle of Vienna. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |

Bin Laden "admitted" involvement?
I'm sorry,but I just do not see that in the sources' transcripts. It seems some summaries are saying that but the actual transcripts do not. Mr.grantevans2 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What the sources' transcripts show is his admiration,praise and maybe even foreknowledge but they do not include an admission of responsibility by bin Laden. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He admitted involvement multiple times:



--Aude (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bin Laden admitted involvement, but he has also been evasive as to the extent of his involvement. Lots of people seem to read a little too much into his statements. Peter Grey 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those translations have been disputed by independent translators. They claim those parts are inaudible in the tapes and according to them "wishful thinking" on the part of the original translators. There is no authenticated statement by bin laden that indicates foreknowledge. Wayne 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet somehow I suspect that if someone ever translated a video of his to say "I had no involvement," you wouldn't hold the same doubt. --Golbez 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From the comments above, and assuming the original translations are the best source(which I have no opinion about), I'd suggest the word "claim" rather than "admit". Since Bin Laden has been self-contradictory as to his responsibility, I see no reason to assert that his claims of responsibility are truer than his denials, which is what,I think, the word "admit" confers. Also, "claim" is the better opposite to "deny", I believe. I will try the "claim" word and see how it reads. Mr.grantevans2 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, let's be real, here. Osama bin laden's obituary appeared in various Afghan and Egyptian newspapers, according to Fox News and the BBC, indicating that he died from a lung infection on the way out of Tora Bora in 2001, and was buried in Afghanistan in an area which was subsequently bombed. Various foreign officials stated that this was probably true, because he was on kidney dialysis in conditions in which he couldn't obtain sterile water easily. Several translators have indicated that the U.S. Government took inappropriate liberties with the translation of the "Osama" "confession" video. Nothing in the original Arabic on the tape even indicates foreknowledge of the events. Additionally, apart from the hat and SOME of the features of the beard, the guy in that video doesn't really look like Osama. Thirdly, Kevin Barrett PhD, who has transcribed earlier tapes of bin Laden indicates that the voice on this tape and subsequent audio/video tapes "of bin Laden" are not bin Laden. This does not prove who made them. The last word from bin Laden was around October, 2001, when he criticized the attacks and said he had nothing to do with them. The U.S. government prevented that tape from being played in the U.S. claiming it might contain codewords to tell sleeper cells to launch additional attacks. The last video -- the guy with the black beard looked a lot more like Osama than the first impersonator, and nobody would have noticed if there hadn't been the earlier fraud, but his nose is noticeably wider at the nostrils than Osama's. Also, people who speak Arabic indicate that besides not sounding like bin Laden, the speaker on the tape doesn't use Osama's "flowery rhetoric" and doesn't talk about any issues that concerned bin Laden. Instead, he goes out of his way to sound like a liberal Democrat. You tell me why radical Islamists would create a fake tape like that. IMHO Osama is Big Brother Bush's Emmanuel Goldstein. If necessary, we'll be looking at new "bin Laden" out video tapes (or whatever technology comes next) for the next 200 years. Wowest 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I see reliable sources for one side of this discussion &mdash; and a lot of them &mdash; but not the other. --Haemo 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sources, I noticed there is nothing in the article about how the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence financed and supplied the islamic extremists (including bin Laden) in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This 1999 article is a particularly good source for that. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fox News and the BBC aren't good enough for you, Haemo? Wowest 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Linky linky? Fox News and the BBC reporting that a bunch of local paper ran obits for Osama Bin Laden does not support the contention that he's actually dead, and it's been a big US government snow-job in the meantime.  In fact, they don't even support the contention that he's dead.  --Haemo 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give you some linky-linky shortly. Meanwhile, you're saying that there is no such thing as "evidence?" People have been executed for murder in this country on a lot less evidence than the available evidence that Osama is dead.


 * I'll bet that you believe that whatever you believe is true, because if it weren't true, you wouldn't believe it. Right? Wowest 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you could possibly construe what I said to mean "there is no such thing as evidence", but feel free to tell me more about what I believe; it's definitely a profitable way forward. --Haemo 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be best to simply stick to the actual event that took place on 9/11 for this article, and argue about who did what or who supported who before and after in other articles, such as in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article?--MONGO 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. But what do we know? Four aircraft were reportedly hijacked. Two aircraft, of an unknown type, subsequently hit the WTC. Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon. It was reported that a passenger airplane had been vaporized there -- except for American DNA, of course. Most the aluminum and all of the steel and titanium in the engines was reported vaporized. Somewhere in Pennsylvania, something caused a hole in the ground. Apparently, most of it was vaporized too. Except for the American DNA, of course. Arab DNA is clearly inferior. Their passports are fire-proof, however. None of the black boxes was recovered. A few years later, it was revealed that a cockpit voice recorder from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had been recovered. Instead of recording the conversation in the cockpit, however, it recorded voices in the back of the passenger cabin, and the last five minutes was missing. Did I miss anything here? Wowest 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Two aircraft of an unknown type"???? "Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon"????? Look, if you don't want to contribute to the article and use facts to back up your contributions, then maybe you're on the wrong website. Seems you have missed about every fact we know, and replaced it instead with ridiculous conspiracy theory notions...at least based on your comments you just posted.--MONGO 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Wowest is not so alone in his skepticism and I don't think it's constructive for the "conspiracy theory" characterization to be thrown out as often as it is as a strawman. I don't see where Wowest is putting forth any theory at all; he seems to me to simply be challenging some of the ingredients of the conventional theory. His point about the miraculously surviving hijacker passport is thought provoking enough in itself to raise eyebrows about some of the ingredients of the conventional theory, so lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to his comments. Having said that, there is the reliable sources issue which,I think, should be the driving force in terms of article content. Mr.grantevans2 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard that a tornado once blew a Rooster into a jug, and another blew a cow 2 miles and set it down without a scratch! That raised my eyebrows! But does it mean we should be looking for other explanations about tornados? RxS 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "I once heard that" is not equatable with the passport ingredient which has reliable sourcing. Secondly, it's not our function to be looking for any explanations about anything, that would be OR. Thirdly, I think it is our job to construct articles with reliable sources which theorize as little as possible, even if it's a conventional theory and the theorizing is coming from reliable sources (like Colin Powell sitting in the UN presenting "irrefutable proof" of Saddam's WMD's)Mr.grantevans2 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and this line of inquiry is not getting us anywhere even close to reliable sources or any concrete changes to the article, so I think we should probably let it be. --Haemo 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They haven't produced a single reliable source yet.--MONGO 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO,I resent being conflated into a "they". I think we are all working together here. Also, I kind of agree with Haemo on this matter; It's really like pissing in the wind to try to discuss this issue outside the box. Most everybody has already got their opinions and supporting sources lined up like snowballs. Mr.grantevans2 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I do think there should be a lot more attention in the article to the creation and financing of the 9/11 attackers (assuming it was bin Laden's crowd) and there are reliable sources that we could use in that effort. Mr.grantevans2 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) I think we've (you, specifically) just added about all that can be said without straying into undue weight or summary style issues. It's sort-of-related to the attacks, as events, but much more critically related to the motivation and responsibility for those events and just be covered on the subpage in more depth.  --Haemo 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely...a lot of this argument has little to do with what happened on 9/11...the day of the attacks. Other deatils are mentioned, perhaps in too much detail, as a lot of that should be summarized and redirected to other articles that already exist that discuss peripheral issues, such as the involvement of bin laden, etc. in greater detail.--MONGO 06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While the particular roles of bin Laden and the various other perpetrators are certainly worthy subjects, there seems to be very little verifiable information. Peter Grey 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I have come to agree with all 3 comments directly above and with the current content of the article. Mr.grantevans2 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

pentagon
I think that how the government could easily prove it was a terrorist attack by releasing the video of the plane hitting the pentagon, but wont. The drone theory should also be added. Mustanggt5000 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000


 * I agree, questions with regard to Pentagon should also be raised. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That the Pentagon was struck by a jet as part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has already been established by reliable sources. Sorry, but we're not supposed to give undue weight to fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Take this with good faith, for I'll try to use this edit in effort to illustrate what I'll describe as misfortunate "flaw" in conduct. Editors not so involved in conspiracy, or if you prefer, editors not so wary of conspiracies, may actually see more than one perspective with regards to the tapes mentioned above. If we would get more people here, and manage to ignite decent discussions we'd probably end up with less predictable and repeating set of answers. For example, I cannot remember the correct number, but last time I've checked there were some 80 tapes which are still beyond the reach of FOIA and public eye. The existence of these tapes and the fact that they are under the key has nothing to do with conspiracy. This is a fact. If we would be neutral, we wouldn’t have any problem to mention the tapes or the fact that Pentagon was forced to release some of the blur under public scrutiny.


 * If we would be neutral, we wouldn't have any problem with stating the fact that videos which were released were released due to lawsuit and that they didn't answer some long standing doubts and questions. I'll stop here, because this is another issue which should be discussed under NPOV tag section.


 * The object which struck the Pentagon is not necessarily subject of conspiracy theories; it may as easily be the subject of public interest. DawnisuponUS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the official video released shows no plane hitting the Pentagon then we are not talking about Conspiracy Theories, but Conspiracy Facts. modernclics —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Other versions
It should be made more clear that the version of events mentioned in this article is that of the United States government and that no particular explanation is 100% accurate. This article needs to clearly highlight that there exists other popular versions in regards to the attack, or should I say more accurately, demolitions, and also reinstate the many inconsistencies that have occured piecing together the final story. It is not a conspiracy theory, but part of the real event therefore needing voice in this article. The eyewitness testimonies explaining seeing other aircrafts, and the Mossad Arabs celebrating, are not pieces of a conspiracy, but pieces of reality. Hope someone has the time, and will to shed some truth to this article, I know its hard arguing with anti-troll loving zionist wikipedians, but persistence pays off. The mere fact of the people here trying to shed some truth, considering the mass amounts of discussions in the archives and present, is enough to grant their voice. Remember people, history is being written, if written wrong, you are stuck with lies. Thanks. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave this be, this is a talkpage. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a repeat of your rant, and it's not obviously related to improving the article. But, if you want to take credit for it, and don't mind being banned from the article, go ahead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it as you wish, but It's an outside opinion and we really lack those here. What was the last constructive thing you did? You could answer that question which is hanging in the air whole day and no one is willing to chew on it. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose adding your name to the 9/11 ArbComm warning list is constructive. I've done other things since then, but I certainly can take credit for that constructive comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bravo! We don't have a decent argument so we'll simply ban the editor. It proves the point I've been making all along, eh? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, since you were the one complaining about NPOV, it's your job to come up with an argument backed by reliable sources. I've asked you repeatedly to provide such an argument and you've repeatedly failed to do so.  It should be fairly obvious that these repeated disruptions serve more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the references and points provided so far are not sufficient, I'll provide more when I'm finished dealing with Morton's friends. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided an argument as to why uninformed opinions of non-experts, no matter how well documented, can contributed to this article. Peter Grey (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And if I can add to that, events mentioned in this article are not the US governments "version", the content is drawn from reliable sources and experts working in their field. And, among those sources there is not any controversy at all about what happned that day. That, I'm afraid, is that. Fringe theories are mentioned and have their own articles. Other than that, much of the logic behind putting the NPOV tag on this page is faulty enough to spin the Earth right out of it's orbit. RxS (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about answering an editor instead of resorting to personal attacks? Such behaviour by some editors is the main cause of the mess these sections always seem to devolve into. Many of the replies to people like DawnisuponUS would result in their being banned if they had written it yet such behaviour never even results in a warning. I'm tempted to believe this is baiting someone you dont agree with to get them into a position where they can be banned. Reply to DawnisuponUS: This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out conspiracy rhetoric. Also you may avoid the baiting by some ignorant editors. Wayne (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we update the FAQ?
I didn't notice it myself until a few days ago, but this talk page has a FAQ towards the top. Should we update it to include a summary of why the opinions of lay people in a poll don't override what reliable sources say about a subject? Obviously, this won't deter someone editing in bad faith, but it might help in some cases. I don't know. Just thought I would throw this out there and see what you guys think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent request. If someone wants to obtain a good gauge of general public opinion on a matter (perhaps to determine whether it is fringe or mainstream), are they better off looking to CNN News or to Zogby polls?  An explanation would be useful. The Original Wildbear (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of Date
This article is out of date. Under Section 5.2 Investigations:Collapse of the World Trade Center, the article lists August 2008 as the conclusion of the investigation. That date corresponds to the draft WTC7 Final Report. The actual WTC7 Final Report came out in November 2008.

A major difference between those two reports concerns the downward acceleration of WTC7. In the draft report, the downward acceleration was stated as 40% of freefall. In the FINAL REPORT, the NIST authors defined three stages of collapse. The middle stage, lasting 2.25 seconds, the NIST authors said exhibited a freefall drop extending approximately 8 stories. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources (so wrong for so long)
This question is only for those have have experience tracking the reliability of sources: 

Is the data in the following book (about reliable sources) included in the judgments wikipedia makes as to what are reliable sources?

Title:  "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq" 

I see there is a debate in the discussion archive about conditions under which the BBC can be deemed reliable, but I find that surprising. Prior editors seem also to still be in a nasty war over the basic issue of whether all the hijackers are rightly named or known. Your discussion suggests this is messier than I expected ...

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's messy, this business of history. WRT your question, a single source, or a multitude of sources, can be "right" or "wrong", but wikipedia's purpose is to evaluate, and use sources, not determine truth. Thus, wikipedia may be more "right", or "wrong", on a topic, depending on the sources used, but the preponderance of what is deemed as "reliable" sources, not "truth", is expected to win out. Ronabop (talk)

Super Explosives
Recently carried scientific study showed there was Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This study passed rigorous Peer review. I'd suggest you folks start rewriting this, this… I'll stay polite. Redandgraychips (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice this is your first edit ever, so welcome to Wikipedia. I've read the abstract of the paper you linked to but its not clear what particularly you are suggesting be added to the article. If you have an actual set of words you'd like inserted, please put them forward. Anyone can edit articles, so there's no need to ask other people to do it for you. As a polite warning however, this article is unsurprisingly a contentious one and you should propose any changes here on the talk page to get consensus for them before adding to the actual page.


 * I suspect the reason you've linked to this study is you believe there is an alternative explanation for 9/11. If so, this is not the page you should be discussing this, as this article is principally about the attacks themselves. Other issues are included fairly briefly here because they are discussed in much greater detail at 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Commission Report and Criticism of the 9/11 Commission to name a few. There are many alternative theories on causes and motivations, and not space here to detail them all, which is why these other articles exist. Including points from the study you mention on this page would give it undue weight in an article largely dedicated to a different topic.


 * So in summary - welcome to Wikipedia, feel free to use this talk page to propose actual wording changes to the article, and if what you want to include relates to an alternative theory for 9/11 please consider whether the material would be able to be covered in more detail at one of the other articles mentioned above and linked directly to this one, rather than trying to get consensus for a change to this page. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Postscript - can I add that your editing style bears a strong resemblance to User:DawnisuponUS. Please confirm that this is not also your account. Euryalus (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the results are independently confirmed, that's one thing, but by itself the "study" is not a sufficient reliable source. The "study" is biased - it considers the comparison of dust samples with rapid-ignition thermite, but makes no other investigation.  This is the kind of backwards scientific method employed by creationists and Holocaust deniers.  Nor does it make any kind of determination as to whether the chemical components originated before or after the impact, fire and collapse.  Also, one of the authors is Steven Jones, a known promoter of the demolition hoax. Peter Grey (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion and links at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Hut 8.5 09:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that people here have any right whatsoever to libel scientists and scholars as conspiracy theorists and I don’t think that you can weasel out from this one. This is certainly not promotion of hoax, it is promotion of science. After all, this study marked the end of conspiracy, we are now dealing with scientific facts. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The presence of those materials doesn't prove anything. Single-purpose-accounts created to push conspiracy theories are not likely to be taken very seriously. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not proving anything, we're reporting scientific findings. Of course no one takes this place seriously, it’s swarming with conspiracies, it is less reliable than prison planet and it has the same irresponsible approach to some very serious issues. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's promotion of fringe theory, which is not wikipedia's purpose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Bentham Science Publications here, which is presumably highly relevant as both sides use this to make their case for or against potentially including Bentham papers as sources. We should let every editor present his or her information or views on this question, which should not be confused with the question of whether any hypotheses are true or not. Wikipedia is not about the truth, see WP:V. Then we can at least try to build consensus based on the information that has been presented. --Cs32en (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than that. If the general tone of a wikipedia article contradicts the preponderence of what reliable sources have to say about a topic, then it puts wikipedia in the business of POV-pushing and originating information - which is not wikipedia's place to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates have endorsed Bentham Science Journals. This was removed yesterday by one of the “well established” editors, although it is more than related to discussion and although it clearly shows that we're dealing with one of most reputable sources ever provided on these pages. Please restrain, assume good faith and thread lightly. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Some requests:
 * First, you're clearly not a new editor - please indicate what your other account name is so we know who we're talking to.
 * Second, talk pages are for suggesting changes to articles - if you have a specific change you wish made to this article, please provide a rough outline of the words you'd like included so a consensus can be reached on whether they should go in. Until you actually propose something to be included in the article, this conversation is likely to go nowhere. It's not enough to "suggest you folks start rewriting this" - you're the one who wants the change, you should be the one who proposes some words for it.
 * Third, given the points raised above you need to explain why what you want included satisfies WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and depending on what it is, WP:FRINGE.
 * lastly, as you know there are a great many pages on 9/11 topics. You might like to explain why what you want included should be on this page and not one of the other ones.
 * This is not meant to sound unfriendly, but until the above are addressed as a start, this disucssion is unlikely to ever reach consensus regarding any changes to the article itself. Euryalus (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm editor who worked on this article around 2006; I’ve stopped my work voluntarily. I'll do what you've suggested as soon as time allows, at this point in time I'm not much interested in editing though, I’m far more interested to see more people in here, while doing my best to keep the “enforcers” from “shooting” everyone who comes in. I’m also inclined to state that I deeply appreciate your inputs, for those seem to be complementary to what I’ve just pointed out. Above, editor stated that study we're considering is discussed elsewhere. It should be discussed here. This article needs to be updated; this is very hectic subject, yet we have extremely lengthy status quo. We are far, far away from the fringe if the whole nations are aware (see Danish public TV News here) of the undisputable scientific findings published in reputable scientific paper, we have an obligation to include such findings in the article. I’ll answer your other points/concerns as soon as possible. In meanwhile I would like to encourage everyone to join the discussion. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who removed it yesterday. It was added just as a link with no context or explaination. I'll do the same if links keep getting added in the same manner. In the meantime, Baseball makes the cental point here. The vast majority of mainstream/reliable sources and experts working in their field do not subscribe or support (or really report or study) these ideas. That's why we do not and will not. They have their own pages and that's where they belong. And just as a note, the findings are a long long way from undisputable, even laymen can immediately see how dubious they are...but that's not why we're here.
 * If you want to continue this discussion, do it on a conspiracy theory page. Even before that, state what your other accounts are. RxS (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once we get a peer reviewed study which contest the findings published at Bentham Science Journals you'll be able to provide something that will substantiate your layman opinion. As for your claim about mainstream media and lack of interest in these "ideas", as you've called them, it is plainly wrong. This article is in poor state because of cherry picking, certainly not because we lack reliable sources that touch upon this or that subject.


 * But that is really not the issue; the real issue here is somewhat brilliantly devised tactica that comes along with smear terminology. Take one look at the "conspiracy movement" which is established by the very editors who work on this article, you included. What is the purpose of this vast "conspiracy talk" we have here? If not to cloud the serious issues, so that people would 'confuse' "unanswered questions" with "conspiracy gibberish". We had conspiracy lists here, probably still have them, as those serve to dismiss and libel prominent people who would otherwise be, and are, very strong voices of reason.


 * No matter what you say, this whole drama we're having here has the same ol' players, and parts they are playing have become historically insignificant and boring to watch and that is one of the reasons I've came back to see if we can draw some new, independent editors here. If we take you RxS, as one of the "long established" editors here, what may we learn from your conduct? You have just dismissed 18 months of peer reviewed work published in scientific journal endorsed by Nobel Laureates as conspiracy theory? A very strange form of conspiracy nuttiness to say the least, a very fine example of the "background issues" we have here.


 * You may as well block this account, I've shared all about my origins I'm ready to share, after all, that's the way you folks keep consensus around this article, you don't build it, you enforce it. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To which minority are you referring to? Could you provide a source? Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, User:Huntdowntheconpiracists has made clear they're "not much interested in editing" the article, won't reveal their primary account and has declined (so far) to actually propose any specific changes to the text. To date there's also zero support for the suggestion that the bentham study be included or referenced in the article, per WP:UNDUE as well as other issues.

I can't see any of the above changing, and until it does we're not getting far with this discussion. Is there support for marking the thread as closed and moving along? Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no point to propose change to the article (with regards to this topic) until we resolve the differences around Bentham source. I’m still waiting for reference which would explain WP:UNDUE claim. Polls and media reports are clear about the massive weight we’re dealing with. Would you like to open a new section for that topic? That said, where’s the rush? I’d appreciate if we would wait; perhaps someone new will come in and give us a thought. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE & WP:UNDUE seem to be the main arguments. I've examined the discussion about the polls; guess there's no need to go there again. But if these polls are rejected, I would like to know from where fellow editors draw their conclusion that we're talking about the minority views and fringe theories? From the information available and already provided in this and previous sections, I'd say that we're talking about either dualism of a sort; or I'd go as far to state that it is vocal minority which supports what is usually referred to as "official conspiracy theory". I'd say it is especially so if we look at things globally, rather than locally.


 * I would once again kindly ask for reference which would support the notion that we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * | Yet by and large, the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement, taken seriously by few and laughed at by most. RxS (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't seem work, let me help. I've noticed that opinion the other day, it is interesting opinion, but it speaks against the point you're trying to make, so you may be thankful that it doesn't meet the lowest of our criteria. Have you even read the comments there? Either way, we're not discussing 9/11 truth movement or conspiracy theories, we're discussing a brand new scientific finding and reasons for or against their inclusion to the article.
 * Here, this multiplicity of sources shows that majority of people believes that there were other culprits than al Qaeda behind the attacks. Could you provide WP:RS and WP:V link which would dispute such reports? Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked for a reference that supports the notion that we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories and I gave you one: the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement. That was your question and you got an answer. Tap dance all you want but it's clear where mainstream media, reliable sources and experts working in their field stand on this. Thats how we we draw content and not polls. Most people don't know how jet engines work but there they are...not dropping from the sky. RxS (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked for WP:RS and WP:V reference, and I'm still asking/waiting. Reliable sources and experts discovered nano-structured thermite in WTC dust. Where does the mainstream media stand? It is clear to me, but you obviously need a reminder. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a typo in RxS's post (it has a | at the end of the URL). Here's the corrected link  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media By the way, your assertion that reliable sources and experts discovered thermite is wildly inaccurate. All this excitment on the basis of one remarkably shoddy paper...''"dust samples collected and sent to the authors"..indeed...6 to 8 years after the event. Please stop wasting our time. RxS (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Huntdowntheconpiracists as a sock of User:DawnisuponUS etc.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled, imo, that is pretty good opinion piece, it is titled  What's crazier, believing the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 or that Saddam did?, it is pretty valid question if you ask me. There are 34 comments bellow that article at the moment I'm writing this. Each and every one of the people that commented there have understood what author tried to deliver, each and every one of those comments questions the findings of the commission as well as official narrative of 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure what you folks are trying to prove, do we even have a difference of opinion? Well, as pretty as that source is, I'm afraid it is not acceptable by the high standards we have here. Have you read the study, the collection and source of the samples is made clear there. Still waiting. I&#39;vecommittedathoughtcrime (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As the only advocate for including this material is apparently a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and as there are no actual proposed changes to the article arising from anything above, I've archived the thread as earlier proposed. Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)