Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 50

air defense?

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

how comes this article has no info about inactivity of air defense on that day? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is documented in Wikipedia's article U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. Evidently, the military response is not deemed very important to the 9/11 topic; as it has only received a wikilink in the article, and nothing more.  By contrast, the Attackers and their motivation section comprises more than 15000 bytes of text. Wildbear (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ...is not deemed very important... but my question is by whom? why doens't it deserve a single sentence at least in this article? i think it is a fundamental question, how there were no military jets intercepting even one of these hijacked plains, even after they started hitting buildings, one by one, with decent time passing between the crashes? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources. You may think it's fundamental, but if reliable sources don't, then it isn't. Just like if I think it's a fundamental question to ask if Abe Lincoln was a robot or not, doesn't mean it's important for the encyclopedia. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * how about these sources? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I admit I was wrong and didn't see those. But even then, in that case there already is a proper section in that article, and there doesn't need to be one here. Thanks for pointing that out though. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * you don't seem to understand my concern. why is there not even a mention about that in THIS article, which btw has pages and pages of other info. for example, there is a whole article about Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks, and many other articles about sections from this article, yet, there is not even a sentence about the military response (or lack of it) in this article. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the other editors here, but to me, it doesn't feel like it belongs here. Since it is already mentioned elsewhere, and since it isn't extremely vital to this article, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. You can ask some of the other editors though. --Tarage (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * it does seem someone else asked similar question above Talk:September_11_attacks, so i'm not the only one with this view. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * i would add it, but the page is semiprotected...93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a quick and easy way to remedy that. Simply register an account. --Tarage (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)--Tarage (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * been there, done that. wikipedia is full of stalkers, so this is my preferred way ;) 89.216.142.22 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, but in this situation, you'll be hard pressed to find someone to edit for you, unless you find someone who agrees with what you are proposing. Sometimes bold edits are the way to get the ball rolling. Though other times they cause frustration. It's a double edged sword. I hope in the future you decide to register. While you do occasionally get 'stalked', the benefits outweigh the risks. --Tarage (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's best if you write down the exact changes/additions to the article that you are suggesting, so that a registered user may insert them into the article, or we would have a more focused discussion on the proposal at the talk page here. Cs32en  08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

<- maybe to start with something like this (from above linked military article): ''The U.S. military response during the September 11, 2001 attacks was ineffective in preventing both World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon from being hit by hijacked airplanes. While 911 Commission stated that FAA failed to notify NORAD in time of hijacked planes, ATSC director stated that everyone who needed to be notified was notified, including the military.'' 93.87.190.226 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sentence appears useful. As for the second sentence, I don't think we can assume that readers know enough about the 9/11 Commission, FAA, NORAD and ATSC to understand the meaning of the sentence. Prior to adressing the question of who said what at which point of time, we should start with those facts that are basically undisputed, e.g. at which time fighter jets were actually scrambled. Cs32en  15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That first sentence seems bad to me. I think something more neutral would be better. --Tarage (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys have been warned about this fringe information yet you continue to push it? – túrian  patois  21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

what the hell is this? archiving an ongoing discussion? your disagreement doesn't make it fringe. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with 93.86.164.168 on this. Turian is out of line in archiving this ongoing discussion about a topic which most definitely is not fringe.  (See a list of references here if you don't believe that this topic is extensively covered by reliable sources.)  This is a complex topic which is difficult to boil down to a few sentences, but the editors discussing the subject are doing so in good faith and without evident intent to compromise the quality of the article.  Quite the contrary; the air defense response is a very important topic in the 9/11 matter, and any general overview of 9/11 is incomplete without some inclusion of the air defense issues. Wildbear (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion obviously focused on a suggestion on how to improve the article. Not agreeing with the suggestion is not a valid reason for closing the discussion. Cs32en  05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't incorporate my opinion into my decision making. It is fringe based on the fact that many people question (the conspiracy theorists) whether the government even tried. So it IS fringe. Take it to appropriate article and stop discussing it here, unless you want it brought up at AN/I. – túrian  patois  07:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * why is conspiracy theory relevant here? we are talking about what NORAD, FAA, and other GOVERNMENT AGENCIES stated. stop abusing wikipedia rules. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only have multiple reliable sources, including the most prominent media in the U.S., widely reported on the information that is missing in the article, the issue has made headline news over a time span of several years (2001, 2004, 2006, see the sources below). I ask Turian to reopen the discussion on the on the proposal made by the IP editor. Cs32en 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Prosecution
Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were they prosecuted posthumously? If not, aren't they innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What are the implications of that on this article?? JiminezWaldorf 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Newsweek, January 3, 2009: "...scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified."(ref) Were the hijackers prosecuted posthumously?  I don't know.  Implications for the article?  More references would be needed to establish notability.  Interestingly, Wikipedia's Flight 11 article only mentions the remains of two hijackers being found, and the Flight 175 article mentions none.  This probably needs updating, as the Newsweek article mentions finding the remains of four of the New York hijackers. Wildbear (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Court of law. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We say what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say they are guilty, then so do we. Funny how that works huh? --Tarage (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Guilty" is a legal term, which has its limitations. The 19 hijackers cannot be found guilty because the US does not prosecute dead people. However, there are criminal investigations, in this case by the FBI, and those investigations draw evidence-based conclusions. In addition, one defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, was tried in a US court for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, and he was found guilty based on the conspiracy scenario involving the 19. The evidence is overwhelming, widely reported and available, represents a worldwide consensus, and it all points toward the 19 (and their Al-Qaeda hierarchy). A criminal trial produces a legal verdict, which does not represent a finding of factual certainty. The evidence in this case has been reviewed and scrutinized by experts and scholars around the world. A guilty verdict only represents the opinions of 12 ordinary people. I think what we have is more reliable than a guilty verdict. The only advantage a guilty verdict would bring to an encyclopedia is freedom from libel, which is not an issue when the potentially libeled are all dead by their own crime. Dcs002 (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Wikipedia is NOT a court of law. We can call someone guilty if the reliable sources infer this. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree for one reason. "Guilty" is a legal term indicating a finding of legal guilt, which in the US means a court verdict. True, there are other definitions of the word (such as the emotion), but I think we should avoid the term because of it's implied legal meaning. I think we have plenty of justification to say the 19 committed this act, without qualification. They did it, and we all know it. And since, as you say, we are not a court of law, I think we should avoid using the word "guilty." (I don't know of any reliable sources that have used that word.) Just say they did it. Dcs002 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe we have tried in the past to just flat out say this, but many objected, so we are stuck with the current version. Feel free to change it from guilt to straight implication if you want. I just can't guarantee it won't be reverted. --Tarage (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Parody on 9/11.
It's actualy parodied in Postal movie. I didn't saw it competely but in the begining there is a clear parody on terrorist pilots and their passanger victims. Yeah very smart and funny to play such things on tragedys.

Also there is no "9/11 in culture" part in the article. And its influencing such things like movies and so on. Some of them where canceled/edited as for their terrorism content. Also I've heard that pig cops where removed from Duke Nukem Forever to show respection to police officers who died there.--Oleg Str (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... for such a serious and important article... I'm not entirly sure where a 'pop culture' section would go. You could always be bold and add it yourself. As for Postal, that's that Uwe Boll film right? Yeah, he isn't known for having taste... --Tarage (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks. Hut 8.5 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly object to having a pop culture section on the article. --John (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence
What is this based on?

I find it insulting, that im expected to believe this.

how much evidence would be required to have this article updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.237.182 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's sources are fairly transparent, as are wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you find the article insulting, work on improving it with RS. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Couldn't have said it better myself. --Tarage (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is transparent is your misdemeanor. I would like to know for how long we'll have to bare this hegemony of few… I'll stay polite. ManComesAround (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to "bare" it only as long as it takes you provide better sources than are already present. So, what have you got? Rockpock  e  t  22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have record breaking archive here with whole plethora of pretty good sources, let me ask, why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation?


 * We have well referenced article about 9/11: Press for Truth, who and for what end made a decision to omit this historical call from this article? What would be the reasoning behind such decision? ManComesAround (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that there are some facts in 9/11: Press for Truth. Our article is neutral on that issue.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're assuming assumptions... and that will lead us nowhere. We are not here to determine factual accuracy, obviously so. If there is notable call for new investigation then there's a notable call for independent investigation - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ManComesAround (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. So, I misspoke.  You're assuming there's a notable call for an investigation in 9/11: Press for Truth.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you are able to assume good faith as you contribute to the project, perhaps I'm wrong? Let me repeat that question. Why we lack section about unanswered questions and calls for new investigation? ManComesAround (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Those few calls for a new investigation which do not presuppose a conspiracy theory could possibly be here.  I believe 9/11: Press for Truth should be noted somewhere, but in which subarticle?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You knocked me off my feet Arthur, let's discuss these possibilities, do you think that futile take of NY Coalition for Accountability meets the merit? Or rather, before we move on, could you kindly give a few arguments of why to exclude the Press for Truth? Have you read our article about it, there is no conspiracy to be found, not a single world, nothing but questions there. ManComesAround (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite delusional if you believe what you are asking for is NPOV. I'm getting sock puppet vibes. I think I may request a check user... --Tarage (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I was right. Carry on. --Tarage (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about replying to the WP:DUCK. Still, it seems to me that if there were any non-conspiracy-theory requests for reinvestigation, there should be some note about it in one of the related articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we had enough of this inane gibberish, someone should close this ridiculous exchange. InnerParty (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Act swiftly
User: The Original Wildbear, reverted my edit made on solid grounds and implied that Mr. Rumsfeld is a pig. I think he should be dealt with swiftly. InnerParty (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lipstick on a pig is a well-known expression and does not typically imply that the subject is a pig. TOW restored well-sourced material. Please propose controversial changes on the talk page first. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm certain editor wasn't implying a thing there. What's this about controversial changes? What is the purpose of that quote? It looks like someone stick it there out of the blue. No explanation, nothing, someone just smacked it there, for what reason? I'm certain there are better places where editors can provide more insightful opinions about 'things related or not'. I'm saying that Mr. Rumsfeld's quote is redundant to this article which is easy to read and easy to understand, at least until that point. InnerParty (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular well-sourced material is especially informative and interesting, as it evidences, just hours after the attacks, a mindset which seemed to guide the Bush administration through most of its major policies and actions in the months and years which followed. Wildbear (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't find it informative at all, if anything, it's a quote without context. Look at it as if you would see it without knowing any of the 'evidences' you allege here. See, it means nothing and it says nothing, it should be removed. InnerParty (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

numbers discrepancy
In the opening paragraph, death toll is mentioned as 2993. In the table immediately to the right, it's stated as 2995. Which one's correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.237.172 (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC) ''

Italic text''

hijackers included?
Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well?Jlujan69 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't they die? -Jordgette (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page --Mdönci (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Al quida hijackers that the United States intelligents "claims" crashed the airplaines into the twin towers have been found alive. Bringing the validity of these intelligent reports along with the whole official story into question 24.10.121.82 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another false statement. Perhaps more accurate (but still irrelevant to this article) would be that people have been identified as (some of the) 19 hijackers were discovered later.  Those identifications have not been substantiated.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Al Qaeda terrorists should not be included in the number dead; rather, there should be a separate column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.132.3 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of dead is a matter of statistics, a fact, as best as can be determined, and the hijackers should be included in that, but an asterisk stating that "x" number of fatalities were hijackers would be appropriate. Removing emotion from the equation, the hijackers WERE among the dead.76.88.76.161 (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system
At the top of this page we have a notice about 2008 arbitration case, upon reviewing the statements and learning about deeper context I would like to note that decorum has been broken by the two editors who have previously shown continuous tenacious approach to this article. These two editors are clearly a part of the wider group which is Gaming the system and whose interests have nothing to do with guidelines and principles established by Wikipedia Community. In line with their previous efforts, these editors have shown disregard to the editorial process while removing and/or omitting publicly known, notable and well referenced material from the article. There is no doubt that their refusal to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge' has no valid or logical foundation and that their actions hurt the project, fuel unnecessary vandalism and unwelcome behaviour. Since this is historically repeating occurrence that is well know within and outside of Wikipedia, I would at this time ask for swift and appropriate action of the administrate. InnerParty (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, that if I were to ignore WP:AGF, I would be forced to assume that you were one of the two editors. However, "refusing to allow information which is considered to be 'common knowledge'" but does not appear in any reliable sources is exactly what should be done.
 * As an aside, it appears you are being reverted both by editors who lean toward both the "truther" and "mainstream" positions, suggesting that your changes do not meet with consensus. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regards, is it so? Perhaps the fact that I've been reverted by both 'twoofez' and 'debunkez' means that I don't care much about 'twoofewizm' and 'debunkewizm' or something as strange as that..? Perhaps not. Either way, I'm glad that you've showed some restraint. I'd appreciate if you'd review the edits made, before you 'divulge' what should and what shouldn't be done. By doing so, you'd see that your allegation is made with.. without foundation, since I've done nothing but provided clear links to notable, well referenced articles that already showed their ability to stand alone and that are not just related, but deeply entangled with topic at hand. As you bare in mind that edits were made after discussion and apparent consensus, I'll most strongly reiterate; if information is available outside of Wikipedia and if it is considered to be (notable and well referenced) 'common knowledge', then our inability to reference such information serves little (as a matter of fact is serves no) purpose, while it does real and tangible harm to this project.


 * Take that as you will, as for my 'rant', I'm afraid that reputation of certain editors precedes them, and although I'm exercising restraint in WP:AGF manner, I'm ready to 'prove' what's written above while using most basic queries to search engines, queries that 'divulge' real meaning (and incivility) of 'tenacious editing'. Ok? InnerParty (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes...we shall not tolerate tenacious editing or incivility like this one, a "first edit" by you. I checked out those that reverted your edits...they look fine to me, BTW.--MONGO 00:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd like it, after examining the history here I've concluded that rudeness goes a long way on these pages, so I've deployed some and I'm sad to say that results confirm expectations. You know, I agree, everything is fine. I'll move out of your way now, keep up the good fight against those 'trolls, jerks, bigots.. or worse'! InnerParty (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suffer fools well...especially when they keep trying to screw up articles with conspiracy theory idiocies. I believe in a zero tolerance plan in dealing with trolls and previously banned editors...my plan includes to make sure they know they are unwelcome...so I sure hope I didn't disappoint you.--MONGO 05:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'I make up stories'
There are two famous statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

'I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z' statement.

And less famous, 'I make up stories,' statement. 

I would appreciate some opinions on why would second reference be of lesser value than the first one (POV pushing? How in the world, and omission of 'admission by torture' is… what?). I'd also like to discuss lack of 'torture section'. Although I'm not surprised that information about torture of Kahtani, Zubaydah and others is missing... I'd really like to see some non-conspiratorial and decent work actually being done here, so here is the link to the blogspot article which is, imo, referenced well enough to serve as a good starting point for suggested discussion. InnerParty (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why the "tachyonbursts" article is not (a) completely unreliable (as we define WP:RS) and (b) written by an editor banned from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Could you kindly point out where I've said it was reliable? b) What to hell is a tachyon burst? c) there is really no way we can have a decent discussion here, yes? InnerParty (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * a) If it's not reliable, it can't go in the article. It might be used to find reliable sources, but....
 * b) User:Tachyonbursts is a banned editor. If that's his blog, then adding information he provides is proxying, and could lead to your being blocked, even if the information were actually of use.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PROXYING. If someone finds information on a website that is presumably being maintained by a banned user, this does not mean that this editor is acting "at the direction of a banned user". In most cases, such websites would not be considered reliable sources anyway. If the website points to a reliable source, then the existence of such a reliable source is a valid reason for the possible inclusion of a piece of information in an article, independent of how the reliable source has been found. The situation is probably different if a banned user would publish templates for WP edits on a webpage, and someone else would use them verbatim to edit WP articles. Cs32en  00:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to bring up the hypothesis that InnerParty was already a sock of Tachyonbursts. I was asked to investigate, and declined, on the grounds that my sock identification skills were lacking.  If he had responded to the proxying allegation, it might have provided some insight.  Oh, well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, referring to an article which is presumably written by a banned user is, umm, a very questionable strategy if you are a sock of that same user. A WP:SPI would be in order, of course, and would be not too difficult, as the potential sock puppeteer is already identified. The potential benefit of tricking some user into revealing more than he or she wants to do does not outweigh the damage that may result if other users are being led to follow a misleading interpretation of actual Wikipedia policies. Cs32en  01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this turned out to be discussion about torture after all, there is not much information about expulsion of the subject, was he removed by the USDHS? Well, after this interesting exchange I'll admit I'm deeply concerned for my privacy, therefore I'm definitely done with editing Wikka-wakka, have fun, InnerParty (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's devastating for the project to lose an editor of your caliber. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I even bother with a sock check? I mean honestly, he made it far too easy this time, especially considering this 'new editor' appeared directly after the last sock was blocked. I would say that this "I suddenly agree with everything you guys say" approach was interesting, but really, this is just tedious. I had my doubts from the very first edit. Can someone else put in the request this time? --Tarage (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I'm having enough trouble keeping track of ResearchEditor socks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cter's are idiots...it's not surprising they are too stupid to know how to mask new accounts that at least make it a real challenge to ID them without checkuser.--MONGO 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the assumption is that if enough low-tech assaults are unleashed, that somehow technology will be rendered useless. Alternately, since there are so many lock-step ideas in the truther movement, it's entirely possible that an army of meat-puppets simply argue the same points. Ronabop (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)