Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 49

Al-Qaeda?
I think we all know 9/11 was a conspiracy and the media played a vital role in it, no plane what so ever crashed into the buildings, for example the nose of the plane came out of the other side of the building, very strange. I think this needs to be more developed in the article. 90.194.14.181 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what you're looking for. 9/11 conspiracy theories RxS (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait… the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building is proof that there was no plane? I don’t get it. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The so-called "no-planers" argue that the images of planes hitting the building are really created by CGI, and that the nose sticking out of the other side of the building is a mistake that was made while the images were being generated. And to answer your next question--yes, there are people who are that stupid. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediate military response
I don't see anything on the immediate military response to the hijacking in the article. Without any coverage of this, the article creates the impression that the US military would have done nothing during the time the planes were in the air, which was not the case. In my view, something about 500-800 characters (not including sources) would be appropriate. Cs32en 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. – túrian  patois  03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article...maybe we just need a quick link under a heading somewhere...see: U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks--MONGO 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding that I think that article was branched off to keep this one from getting too long.--MONGO 03:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We already do have a link in the Immediate response section...--MONGO 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But we know why there was no immediate military response to the hijackings, it's because NORAD stood down and then lied to the 9/11 Commission and to the American people, here, a quick link for you hard working boys. Is this information referenced in the article MONGO? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to write (It's a complex subject to boil down into 800 characters, but it wouldn't be out of place. U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is a long article about the subject. The second paragraph could be the basis of something. But it needs to be a very who what where type of thing without introducing CT stand down claims), but the last thing we need is another lever to add CT crap (see above comment). The current link to U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is fine, if you want to highlight it somehow that'd be fine. But otherwise, no. RxS (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) We would need a "main article" link and a short summary. It should not be in the section "Aftermath", as it's about the response during the attacks. Remark: This is article is probably not the appropriate place for WP:SOFIXIT, WP:BOLD, WP:IAR etc. ;-) And well, yes, they could certainly have done more, but they actually DID do quite a lot of things. Cs32en  04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you folks doing here? RxS did you just called former senator conspiracy theorist? It will not look good in front of 'galactic council' you know. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * K - we'll see ya there...WP:SPA--MONGO 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is rather odd as a lead section paragraph. It's probably best to write a decent lead section for that article first. Cs32en  04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a bit of a mess. RxS (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These are serious issues, who is responsible for such mess? Oh, look, a set of documents about the referral of false statements by FAA and NORAD officials. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd also need a link to United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001. Cs32en 04:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why, that's just a page about operations already in process with nothing to do with responses to the attacks. RxS (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because these operations and exercises have interfered with the procedures taken as a response to the hijackings. Cs32en  05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look> Zelikow Memo about Referral of False Statements by NORAD and FAA Officials, with timetables. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality in Question
Stating as fact that 19 Al-Qaida terrorists attacked on 9/11 is against the ideals of neutrality of Wikipedia.

Many influential people around the globe assert that the US government and the CIA, not Arab terrorists, demolished the 3 towers; people such as Fujita Yukihisa, member of the Japanese Diet (Parliament).

Therefore, all statements on this page should be phrased "It is asserted that..." "The official belief is that..."

Until this article is worded correctly, Wikipedia will be known as a CIA propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.118.1.51 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 06:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything different than the "official" story is called a conspiracy theory. I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page. Reliable to whom? Nothing to get mad over though, If "it" were me, you could bet your ass I wouldn't let anything but my truth appear on a site owned and ran by civilians I ruled over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.53.3 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page." Apparently, not enough.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The time has come to give up the separate versions of "reality." We now have a reliable source (peer reviewed, outside the 9/11 Truth community, professional in its technical discipline) concluding the article with this sentence: “… we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” Does this belong in the conspiracy theory version, or the "what really happened version"? (The source is the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009)Lookunderneath (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lookunderneath, thie article you cite is not from outside the 9/11 truth community. It was co-authored by Niels Harrit of scholars for truth and Gregg Roberts from Architects and engingeers for 9/11 truth among others. It also concludes by thanking David Ray Griffin who is not a scientist, but simply a leader of the 9/11 Truth community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.149 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly. There is no criteria that demands that anyone has to be "outside the 911 truth community". Thats a logical fallacy and pure intellectual dishonesty as well as just plain old common dishonesty. Just supposing anyone held a critical view, they would be banded together with the 911 truth movement anyway. But the crux of the dishonesty is pretending that a label, any label somehow disqualifies _anyone_ from presenting evidence. Nunamiut (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone with the essential analytical expertise, and access to the necessary equipment and untampered WTC dust samples, can corroborate the results presented in this journal document. This is unlike the NIST computer modeling results, where the modeling parameters are kept secret. Hence, this journal document is more verifiable and reliable than the official account, in terms of putting forward evidence for the possible cause of collapse. It's time for Wikipedia to allow verifiable documentation to be put forward, instead of holding the topic hostage to hypotheses which can only be taken on faith. At the very least, it stands as another reason to note that the article's neutrality is in dispute. The Original Wildbear (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not wikipedia's place to try to prove that something other than the official report is true. If and when a preponderance of reliable sources question the official story, then you've got something. Until then, it's fringe theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only idiots are stupid enough to think the WTC was blown up by explosives.--MONGO 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have citations for that claim? And no fair citing this page. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MONGO, may I suggest taking a pause to review Wikipedia:Etiquette. It's something we all should do from time to time.  Especially when editing on contentious topics like this one. The Original Wildbear (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, wikipedia version is the one from the Official Comission that investigated the attacks. Why nowhere is mentioned that the 60% of the commission declared publicly that the investigation was a fraude, and that the Pentagon adn the White House worked actively to obstruct the investigation? Is that what this zelous editors are trying to save here? It's passed the time wikipedia content is freed from the hands of CIA.Echofloripa (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What you see as a "CIA propaganda tool" I see as a factual, reliably sourced article that has survived repeated attempts by morons to compromise its integrity in favor of their preferred conspiracy theory. The reason this article is a good one is because of the hard work of several editors. Go away, you are not wanted here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical answer: moron/conspiracy theory, bla bla bla bla. "Go away, you are not wanted here". You can't just want to take the ownership of a public content, on which a lot of people based their understanding on. let's keep to facts.

If neutrality is to be maintained then I think "and by the community of civil engineers" should be redacted from the following statement:

"This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the community of civil engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.

I'm not sure what "community of civil engineers" is being referred to here, but clearly the most visible, organized, and vocal set of professional civil engineers who are expressing an opinion on this subject are members of AE911Truth. The web site is here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ and there are literally hundreds of degreed, certified, and well experienced CEs who are willing to provide their names and their credentials. Thus there is no need to refer to some vague and anonymonus "community of civil engineers" in this matter. It amazes me that nowhere in this supposedly impartial article is this web site listed.

In the name of neutrality the main article should provide a pointer to http://www.ae911truth.org/, even if it resides in the conspiracy theory section. This is not the article trying to make any statements for or against conspiracy thinking, it is simply acknowledging that conspiracy investigators are out there and where they can be found. On that site you will also find a documented admission that the NIST investigation never considered the possibility of an inside job and thus they did not look for evidence of it. Thus I find the mention of the NIST conclusion used as a mechanism to refute the conspiracy investigator's conclusions a bit disingenuous. We all know it is embarassing to have to admit that Bush's henchmen laid the thermite charges which brought down not only the 2 buildings hit by air craft but also a 3rd building which was not hit by aircraft (WTC7). But Wiki is supposed to be neutral and if there are people saying he did it and offering verifiable proof to the fact that nobody has been able to refute to date, just report the facts as they exist, no more, no less. Let the people do their own research after a pointer is provided.

If Wiki cannot be fair and neutral in these sorts of matters I fear for the future of this otherwise very fine and usable public resource. You simply can't fool all the people all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh for fuck’s sake… do you twoofer idiots even read what you type? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) My, that was a well thought out response. Who are you and what right have you to respond like that on this forum? Where is a moderator when it comes to this sort of thing? Is that the only way you can respond to requests that Wiki live up to its neutrality commitment? Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks. We are all just trying to make Wiki a better global information resource. Of course if there is some intent to hide aspects of the truth then let's discuss why that seems to be so important to some on this thread. All I am suggesting is that the article is clearly NOT neutral in that it makes statements that are clearly inaccurate as I outlined above. I even suggested some changes that I thought would remedy the situation. I really don't think profanity is appropriate in this forum. Try to elevate yourself, please. 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk)


 * This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away. --Tarage (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, you’re right. You’re new here, so I should give you a chance.
 * I’ll give you a bit of advice too: Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories and innuendo. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're being too kind to people who do not come here in good faith. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about reliable sources. AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be. Hence, "This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away." --Tarage (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kidding...it was the giaant squid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.92 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about verifiable facts" I know that. Its what makes Wiki so valuable. But AE911Truth is full of verifiable facts and just because some profane fool writes "AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be" does not change the fact. Those guys even used electron scanning microscopes to VERIFY the presence of unburned micrograin thermite. It is a fact that this substance does not occur naturally in big cities. Where is the counter proof that AE911Truth is not credible? They came up with the electron scanning microscope data so I really don't think it neutral to simply dismiss that as "not reliable". What, in fact, WOULD serve as reliable proof? Only things that agree with your way of thinking, it appears. And I may be new here on this discussion forum but I suspect I have been around a good deal more than many people posting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummmm.... You know thermite is just rust and metal shavings, right? Where oh where would we find rust and shaved metal on an old metal building that has been blown to hell and back by the impact of a multiple ton aircraft full of jet fuel? Saying you found thermite there, and using it as proof that it was detonated manually, is like saying you found burn marks, and they were proof that it was detonated manually. That's not even to mention how implausible it is to demolish a building using thermite, since thermite is a slow burn, not a fast pop like you'd want to destroy support columns. I want source that this magical thermite exists. The "nanotechnology thermite" that is incredibly effective, burns hot and fast enough to take down a building cleanly, and yet has never been used since on any demolition, much less commonly enough for anyone to even know what the hell it is outside of wtc debates. I want source, and I want the source to NOT come from a wtc truth supporter website, since I'm pretty sure creating a website, then sourcing that website on wikipedia to support your views, is against everything this site stands for. 72.95.110.27 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nano-thermite is not created accidentally in a building collapse. Cs32en  15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * disputed; if fullerenes can be created accidentally in a low-temperature fire, why not nano-thermite (as long as temperature never reaches the flash point). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions like this are exactly the reason why a new and credible investigation is needed. Such an investigation must include independent scientists and engineers who can examine the evidence and answer such questions in a believable and scientifically verifiable manner.  Wildbear (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fullerene is a configuration that represents a local energy minimum at high temperatures, nano-thermite is not. Cs32en  23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Hut 8.5 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that treating conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories is an unreasonable statement. I mean, the writers of this wiki nor anyone that I know of nor me have the truth about what happened; but, what's the meaning of verifiable? I have a master in physics and looking at the evidence that the official commission presented I can say that there are affirmations that ARE NOT verifiable; the less verifiable is the strange theory about the building 7. I will say to you one more thing: I live in Argentina; I don't know about anyone, not just one single person, that believes that the government is not implied in the "attacks". I have to say that average argentinian is not a conspiracy fanatic. So, what's the meaning of verifiable? why I an average reader of wikipedia have to read statements presented as truth if that statements are not based on verifiable evidence? at least we have to add "the government/official version" somewhere. josemiotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.75.146 (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Verifiability  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New and independent investigation
There is a simple choice upon us; 'in a last minute decision', Reuters carried the news wire which states that the New York City Coalition for Accountability successfully delivered submission which secures 'referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November'.

Now, we will either put this 'mainstreamed info' straight into this article along with clear explanation of why are the 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, along with free people around the globe calling for new investigation or we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go.

Choose. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tachyonbursts! This your new account is it? --Tarage (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, your first edit is to your user page and your second references ArbCom. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're not new here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm afraid you didn't get it right, and your first post is personal question, while you should have stated your opinion, if any? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people have this article on their watchlist and they work hard to remove unreliably referenced junk science...but no one owns the article.--MONGO 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed your arguments above; it was a motivation of a sort, if you would try to pull such stunt on 'free grounds' you'd get such feedback as this unfortunate fellow here. Perhaps you could provide some support? Certainly unusual, but it seems he has a really hard time defending his views. Well, lets get back to issue at hand, is there any objection for adding the section about 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks'? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "...we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go." That kind of attitude will get you nowhere. And demands are not going to get you anywhere a little bit faster.
 * Now, where were we? (See what incivility does to a discussion?) I think it is possible for a subsection to be placed within the Investigations section; however, if more information appears (the referendum passes), then it could be its own page. – túrian  patois  03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to add it at the moment, if it passes we can add something...but right now it's just a petition. RxS (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than a petition I'm afraid, it is the mainstream. . Let's see if there are more turians out there, before we take this to 'galactic council'. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, still just a petition. If it passes we can add something. Not sure what Charlie Sheen has to do with it...we're not required to add everything that appears in the mainstream. And many times we don't. 80,000 people are a tiny minority...RxS (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Charlie Sheen is an actor...not an expert on anything related to the events of 9/11. I'm not sure what else will be discussed at any further 9/11 inquiries...I haven't seen any new information which refutes the known evidence. Sounds like it will be the same old arguments which will be laughed out of any reasonable court of inquiry.--MONGO 03:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you folks doing here, exactly? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Refuting inaccuracies. Hehe, the caption under Sheen's image is comical..."Truthers make Birthers look like Rhodes Scholars."--MONGO 03:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more amused by that feedback I've pointed out. It's a blast, isn't it? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is more,:

'Lost in the media noise about the resignation is the reality that Obama is not living up to his promises of transparency, and the raw fact we have never had a credible, independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks.'

What are you folks doing here, exactly? You speak about hard work, perhaps you should retire, this place obviously needs some fresh blood. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You want to source something to a press release? This belongs in articles about the 9/11 truth movement or 9/11 conspiracy theories (if anywhere), not here. Note the NYC CAN petition isn't going to go on the ballot yet. Hut 8.5 09:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear, we are discussing addition of the section about the 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks', please consider all sources provided and restrain from making suggestions of redirection to the non-related articles. Thanks. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two main reasons why the suggestions you have made can't be implemented, leaving aside sourcing issues.
 * Firstly 9/11 is a huge topic, and the amount of encyclopedic information is huge. All this information cannot possibly go in this article, because it would quickly become so large nobody would read it. Therefore we have a summary of the topic in this article, and leave the details to sub-articles. To get this material in this article you have to show that it is one of the most important pieces of information relating to 9/11. Right now it is a petition which, if approved, will go on a ballot paper, and if passed, will create a new investigation. This does not make it significant. If this investigation is actually created then it will probably be worth a few lines here. (Note the 9/11 Commission report only gets a short paragraph.)
 * Secondly the content relates to conspiracy theories, which are fringe views (this has been established here many times). Wikipedia cannot give a particular view undue weight, and since the conspiracy theories are a tiny minority view, they cannot get more than a tiny amount of coverage in this article. They can be (and are) covered in more depth in sub-articles. The fact that an actor has publicly supported the theories does not make them mainstream. Hut 8.5 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this discussion for few years now, these two arguments are... I'll stay polite. You fellows have a huge fault, I think it is the fault you've deliberately choose to make and it is silly to expect that people will not point this out, since articles like this one allow folks to refer to Wikipedia as to the Ministry of Truth.


 * - The failure of initial 9/11 investigation and resulting call for another one should be one of the corner stones of this article, yet it is marginalised and omitted to the point of vanquishing. This cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, I expect a decent explanation for such omission as I restrain to call it as it is.


 * - The conspiracy talk defence mechanism is broken, when you say that 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors who are calling for the new investigation on the ground of 'unanswered questions' are conspiracy theorists, you fellows are hitting the rock bottom. Failure to distinguish between conspiracy theories and unanswered question cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, as I restrain from calling it as it is, I doubt that any of you 'regulars' here can explain such fault. Prove me wrong. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Able Danger
Could someone please explain why the article about Able Danger is not linked here? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 would probably be the the primary article that we should link to. Cs32en 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I got that wrong. The intelligence stuff is not my specialty. -- We currently have a large section "Attackers and their motivation". Much of that content should be moved to a subarticle (or to several sub-articles), and a sentence to intelligence activities related to Al Qaida (including a link to Able Danger) should be inserted there. Cs32en 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it, why? Is it because there is no room to link here? Why the article about Able Danger fails to state that alleged hijackers were staying across the NSA headquarters?

[(These) hijackers (were staying) just across the highway, basically (from NSA headquarters). And the NSA is not going the extra step and telling anybody where they are….]

You know, I'm amazed, what in the world are you boys doing here? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that article needs a lot of improvement, once factually accurate, it should go in the section about Cover up, where is that section? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked, I recommend archiving and moving on. --Tarage (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that we consider the idea of adding Able Danger, the PDB (you know which one), and other "warnings" to the article, as it would help give some back-story, BUT (and it's a big "but") this is text that would likely require some serious hashing out in the community of editors working on the topic. Ronabop (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Undue. No. --Tarage (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Undue. Yes. Giving credence to the "we had no idea, no warnings, it just happened" line seems just as broken as giving credence to the "we knew it was going to happen, and did nothing" line... I tend to think both are flawed perspectives, especially on something as complex as this issue. Ronabop (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean it doesn't belong on this page. It'd be find on a 'build up to Sept 11th' page, which I believe it already is. Otherwise it's too much detail for an article on just the event. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree if there wasn't so much stuff in the article that is not about just the event. Cs32en  21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the War in Iraq
In the fourth paragraph where the writer asserts that the United States launched a "war on terrorism" and went into Afghanistan....there is no mention that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and used now discredited information in order to do so.

I have never commented on anything prior so I don't know how this works. I just feel there should be a reference to this and you can easily footnote it with the information we now know from congressional and other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzeravl (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Iraq War was not a consequence of the September 11 attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bin Laden
I added a note which I believe is highly notable, that Bin Laden is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, which someone would assume reading the main artible on bin laden.Echofloripa (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

On the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted list, Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why the change has been reverted, isn't it highly relevant, taking in a account the involvement of Bin Laden on the attacks is the main reason, according to the Bush regime, that EUA is for 8 years on this war on Afghanistan?


 * Looks like original research, since you're drawing conclusions from the fact that a source doesn't mention something. If you want the article to say that the FBI does not want bin Laden, you need to provide a source which explicitly says this. Hut 8.5 13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not how the Most Wanted List works. Peter Grey (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is: They don't want bin laden for the attack to the twin towers. I'm not making this up. If he was really responsible for the attacks, why it doesn't mention any of that on the FBI page? This is not original research. If he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, just be logical.
 * Bin Laden was already "most wanted" before the September 11 attacks. He can't become any more wanted than that.  Peter Grey (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Section "Planning of the attacks"
The following sentences can be dropped, as they are not essential to the coherence of the text:


 * "At that point, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan." (The significance of this information is not explained in the text anyway.)


 * "In late 1998 or early 1999, bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot." (Bin Laden's role is already covered elsewhere.)


 * "Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in the United States in mid-January 2000, after traveling to Malaysia to attend the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit." (The significance of the information is unclear, unless you click on the links.)


 * "New recruits were routinely screened for special skills" (Does that contribute to the understanding?)


 * "Hanjour arrived in San Diego on December 8, 2000, joining Hazmi. They soon left for Arizona, where Hanjour took refresher training." (Why is it significant that Hanjour arrived in San Diego, and not Kansas?)


 * "Binalshibh also passed along Bin Laden's wish for the attacks to be carried out as soon as possible." (Without any reason given for Bin Laden's instruction, this does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic.)

Cs32en 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of deaths, again
The first infobox says that 2 993 people died (including the 19 hijackers) while the second infobox (under the section Casualties) says that 2 976 people died (excluding the hijackers).

2 993 - 19 = 2 974 ≠ 2 976, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.103.70 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. – túrian  patois  15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * CNN.com says 3031 deaths were that day. or did they miscalculate? they have the list of victims. pls reply on my talk page --Mdönci (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is much too long.
If you edit the article, you get the message:

"This page is 129 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size."

See also WP:SIZERULE.

While each individual section may not be too long, as Turian said in his edit summaries, it's the large amount of such sections that make the article too long. In addition, some subarticle get much more coverage in this article than others. As we have subarticles for almost every section and subsection of this article, shortening is rather easy. We may also check whether the information is actually present in the sub-article (which is of course a prerequisite for being included here), and possibly transfer information to the respective sub-article. Cs32en 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we can remove the conspiracy section in just put it in a See Also section. I never really liked the size rule, because the content of some requires the massive length, even with subarticles. – túrian  patois  23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're worried about how long it is, the solution isn't to shorten one section and lengthen another (which is what you just did). I reset it, please suggest better ways to lessen your concerns. RxS (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed about 1000 bytes and added about 400, so a net shortening of about 600 bytes. There are four other sections that can be shortened easily. I agree that this article should possibly not be shortened to 60 KB, but 90 KB would be a reasonable size. And of course, we need some flexibility to be able to present the content of sub-articles in a coherent way. Yet, there are a number of details in the sections that can just be dropped without losing the coherence of the text. Cs32en  23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed content from the planning section and added  content to the Conspiracy theories section (a topic you edit almost to the exclusion of all others). Hardly a consensual way to shorten the article, plus Article size is only a guideline. RxS (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Conspiracy theories section is one of the shortest sections, many other sections, including the one I have shortened, are four times as large, or even larger. And guidelines are supposed to be followed, aren't they? Cs32en  00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories or even a See Also link. This is a serious article about a serious historical topic.  9/11 conspiracy theories are nothing more than trivia within this context.  If the article's too long, this is an obvious candidate for removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we actually have to cut the article down. Though the raw article content is over 120kb, more than half of that is references. In terms of text the reader will actually read the article is only about 55 kb, which isn't that problematic. (Note that "readable prose" is what WP:SIZE actually counts.) This is a very big topic and an article which is slightly longer than normal can be justified. We could remove the conspiracy section, and I can see several comparable articles which have done this, but I would recommend leaving a see also link instead. Hut 8.5 10:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempts to remove the conspiracy section en entre are BPOV, and violate neutrality. HOWEVER; I would suggest breaking every section, including the "conspiracy" section into separate articles. This article could be more of a base index and background for all the various subsections. If done correctly, it would also re-establish neutrality to this currently lopsided point-of-view riddled article. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They already all have their own articles. See the main article notes on each section. RxS (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)