Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 60

Reliable sources
It seems that not a single element going against the official version is present in this article. So, not a single book or a single article is deemed a "reliable source"? Strange, to say the least. --Japarthur (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not "reliable"; those that are published are published in fringe journals, and those that are from "experts" are not from experts in the appropriate field. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all references in this article meet this standard? --Japarthur (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are a number of unreliable sources here, already, but I suspect everything here is sourced to a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, an unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes a reliable source? --Japarthur (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can interpret what I said in that manner, but it's partially correct. An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If this logic is at work here, Wikipedia looses much of its interest, IMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to simply parrot back the same lines over and over again, don't bother. Arthur has been more than polite with you, but you aren't listening. If you wish to include any new/different information, provide reliable sources stating that information. Per the above, sources from fringe journals and from experts speaking of fields outside their expertise do not count as reliable sources. If you cannot do this, please cease this pointless discussion. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I looked like parroting Arthur's words, but they are so incredible I wanted to be sure that is what he wanted to say. Do you agree with him that "An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japarthur (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is, broadly, correct. If an unreliable source says 'X happened', and then (say) a reliable major newspaper says 'Some people have been saying that X happened', then we might want to use this as a source to say that people believe that X happened, but not that X actually happened. Does that make sense? However, I don't think it's actually what Arthur Rubin was saying. I think his point was that this article may contain some unreliable sources, but as long as all facts are sourced to reliable sources then it's not a problem if we also double-up with some unreliable ones. What's not ok is if we have facts that are only sourced to unreliable sources. Hope this helps clarify.-- K orr u ski Talk 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, major news organizations never said anything that was against the official version of what happened and never proved wrong? --Japarthur (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. I was talking theoretically to explain a point about sourcing on Wikipedia. You find a reliable source that goes against the official version, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to add it.-- K orr u ski Talk 13:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Conversely, does a reliable source citing an unreliable source become an unreliable source? There have apparently been many books written contesting the official version (just type in "9/11 conspiracy" in Amazon and you get over 1,000 results), by people with either training or various experience in the subject, so surely they would be considered a reliable source. Books like this one, written by James Fetzer, a distinguished scholar, to name but one, who is used as a reference on the JFK Conspiracy article page for his own book on that subject, means if they are considered reliable there then they should be considered a reliable source here. But that's not the issue here. There is already an article which covers this called 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the real question is why does this article have no section on, or linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories the way the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has, which links to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories? It is my understanding they as sources would still be considered "fringe theories" or "fiction", and would therefore have no place in this article. That is apparently the general consensus (majority, not unanimous) here from editors who have worked on this article. However, that reasoning conflicts with the linking process on the JFK articles. Here's another question: is an unreliable non-fringe theory source more reliable than a reliable fringe theory source??? -- Jodon |  Talk  17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(unindenting for ease of reading)Actually, this article does link to the conspiracy theories page in the 'cultural impact' section. You could argue that the JFK conspiracy theories are much more mainstream and well-embedded in popular culture given that they have appeared in a number of bestselling novels, non-fiction books and movies. 9/11 conspiracy theories have generally been relegated to fringe forums, self-published material and a handful of very niche books with limited circulation. Of course, that's my own fairly subjective assessment, I don't know if that's actually the reason for the difference or if it's just a typical wikipedia case of WP:otherstuffexists. In answer to your last question, I would say - no in theory. In practice, though, I suppose there's an argument that a non-fringe theory is likely to have a wide range of sources, ranging from the highly reliable to the somewhat questionable, and that's probably fine (though obviously not perfect) whereas a fringe theory that is supported by only one somewhat questionable source is probably not going to be ok. I'm not really sure how productive this theoretical argument is, though. Bottom line - if you have well-sourced material you want to add, then do so. If you have identified poorly-sourced material you want to remove, then do so. Just make sure you explain your actions and be prepared to discuss them here if anyone objects.-- K orr u ski Talk 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(Whoops, Korruski snuck in an edit while I was typing) It's a stretch of logic there. Let me clarify what Arthur and Korruski are saying. This article has many reliable sources that overlap to state what is currently stated in the article. Some of them may not be 100% reliable, but due to the overlap, the entire narrative is more or less complete. There have been sources that state things contradictory to this narrative, but they are not reliable. There is due reporting of the phenomenon behind them in the appropriate articles such as the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. In most cases, any new source provided by zealous editors such as Japarthur either contradict existing conspiracy theories, or are not reliable, or both. To put it simply, there is a mountain of sources that state what the article states, and a handful of piles of sources that say various other things. To include more than a mention in the main article of these theories would be placing undue weight on them. Lastly, Wikipedia is a living breathing entity with numerous editors. There is not one right way to build a page, and just because one page does something one way does not mean another must adhere to that page's guidelines. Consensus has been built through calm debate and discussion, and unfortunately it would take quite a bit to reverse it. I hope that helps you both understand the current state of the article and why hyperbole is a waste of time. If you have reliable sources to bring to the table, please do so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this discussion is moot. --Tarage (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I once did my own personal study of the sources on this page (about five years ago). What you find is that of a list of almost a hundred separate sources, they all go back to the government.
 * When looking at sources, it's useful to ask where does this information really come from? How is this information known.

Do we know something because:
 * a paper says they report it
 * a paper says the government says it
 * a paper says a book says it
 * a paper says a group of experts find it
 * a paper uses leaked documents as the source


 * When looking at the sources for this article in the past, over 95% of them were based on government sources. Most every source checked got its information from a government source or commission.  For an example, we know the time the plane hit the Pentagon because a government official at the Pentagon told the news paper, and that paper is referenced in Wikipedia.  Any disparity in information, such as a disparity between primary sources and government sources as to when a plane hit the Pentagon as fringe.


 * But, what is really fringe is that this article is basically a government press release. That, every source when checked will go back to a government document, statement, or release.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.86 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please sign your "contributions". Secondly, if you want to peddle conspiracy theories I suggest you use one of the many sites on the internet. Wikipedia is a encylopedia and relies on reliable sources, not just "government documents" - but other confirmed statements and film archives. You have not provided any references/sources for your sweeping statements either.  Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to be taken seriously then don't talk down to me, use fear quotes, or weaponized language. This discussion is on the sources in this article.  Please stick to the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.86 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not care of the origin of information, only that the sources are reliable. Where those reliable sources get there information is of no concern to us. --Tarage (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Japarthur: of course. 

202.8.72.121 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are these guys reliable ? ;-) 202.8.72.121 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess he is both reliable, notable, and relevant, but for some reason still no place for alternative views and questions in this article.. well, maybe only a 'conspiracy' mention under 'culture' section. (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's of course no place here for Iranian TV source,, after all, they are USA enemies, and this is en/USA wikipedia ! 175.100.34.115 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We have never, nor will we ever use youtube videos as sources. Get off your soapbox or your comments will be removed. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't care if you think it's relevant. Youtube is NOT a reliable source. Until you find a reliable source, stop posting youtube clips. --Tarage (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If we agree on the contents merit in terms of WP:DUE, I'll find better links.. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

9/11 means skipping god in kabballah numerology proof number 1: becuase when you go to the 9 cycrle and skipp the 10 to the hidden cycrle which is the 11 the 1st master number skipping god then you are a luciferian becuase you have skiped god. and the sphere in the world train center was to mimik the kabba the holy grand mosque of mecca because proof number 2: Minoru Yamasaki to mimic the Grand Mosque of Mecca, Masjid al-Haram, in which The Sphere stood at the place of the Kaaba. and the sphere was designed in Germany were the order of illuminati was founded Proof number 3: Koenig started work in 1967 in his barn in Bavaria were the order of Illuminati was founded

conspiracy / alternative theories a culture section??

 * it is NOT nice to remove VALID concern about WP:DUE. I don't know about this Peter guy, you can collapse his comment if you like. 175.100.34.115 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This page contains the biggest lies of all time! No facts! Only things you have seen on TV! Peter Schmalenbach (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________ I object to the placement of a single reference to alternative views in the middle of the huge article into the 'culture' section.

Above users say there are no experts in relevant fields saying the opposite. Editor is either ignorant of the mass of the information, which I doubt is true, or what is more likely purposefully dishonest.

So many questions about events of the day have been asked by people involved in the events, eyewitnesses, etc.. and those questions have not been answered by officials.

I request a more WP:DUE NPOV representations of the alternative view and accounts in this article.

Reliable is not only mainstream. Mainstream is controlled. Dahh.

Government conspiracies are nothing new, Conspiracy_theory, [], and people ignoring such possibilities... well... go figure..

202.8.72.121 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article only contains the facts not the fiction. For the article on fiction go see 9/11 conspiracy theories. That article contains all the fiction you can handle. JOJ  Hutton  14:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears you can't handle some facts. Pity. Truth is often enlightening. 175.100.34.115 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * funny thing is, the truth i am talking about is that there are reliable notable and NPOV:DUE alternative views and questions to be placed into this article... and you know that i am sure.. the fact that you want them removed shows your fear... so my question is what are you afraid of? people who are afraid of discussion with others of opposing views remain closed into their small and limited world-views.


 * "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
 * we are at the third stage now.. well, you try to do second, but actually we are at third.


 * You really think because information is not in this article that it will not reach people? How funny is that?
 * 175.100.34.115 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, as a unregistered IP editor, take your soapboxing to the appropriate page page 9/11 conspiracy theories and leave the facts to those confirmed users who genuinely contribute to the articles. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem that I see with this article that any mention of FACTS not fitting into MAINSTREAM theory is excluded from the article. I am NOT talking about conspiracy theories, but about RELEVANT, RELIABLE, NOTABLE FACTS. Why is Richard Clark's statement irrelevant, or does not deserve WP:DUE ? Or transportation secretary's? And let me remind some that WP:DUE is a policy, while WP:FRINGE is a guideline. Case is not closed, as it gets reopened over and over by a number of good faith editors, and it gets unjustifiably 'closed' by people without counter arguments. 175.100.37.226 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing with your proposal is that any mention of theories not fitting into real facts would be included in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * David Johnson, you don't speak for me. I agree that the section on conspiracy theories in this article should be larger.  There has been much mention of those theories and the people who believe them in the media.  This article does not currently contain information on that topic in proportion to its coverage in the media. Cla68 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, and as mentioned above, there is already a article for "conspiracy theories" and that's where these "contributions" belong and not on a factual page. Wikipedia deals in facts and not theories. Once again: case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cla68 on this. But I would also like to point out that there seems to be an astounding amount of facts that are deliberately left out of this article, and relegated to a sub-page. On the other hand, this article goes to greath lengths to highlight the role of al-Qaeda, bombarding the reader with excessive biographical details of attackers that may not be entirely relevant to 9/11. -A1candidate (talk)
 * This article is about facts, not crackpot conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not facts, and thus do not warrant mention in any real detail here. Case closed. Toa  Nidhiki05  16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everybody, please remember that Wikipedia, by policy represents mainstream views on any subject, with minority views or fringe views given proportionately smaller or no coverage. See WP:FRINGE, bearing in mind that the view that somebody other than the named conspirators carried out the attack is very decidedly a fringe point of view, as reflected in the scholarly accounts that Wikipedia uses for its sources. Please remember that the existence of other, proven conspiracies does not validate the notion that the events of 9/11 happened as a result of a governmental conspiracy, and that Wikipedia is not a sounding board or soapbox for conspiracy enthusiasts on any subject. That does not mean that the views of authoritative critics of the agencies that failed to prevent the attacks and the investigation process such as Richard A. Clarke, who, it should be noted, is not a Truther, should be excluded. Who screwed up and why is relevant: the problem is that there are few academic sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument has never been about the lack of conspiracy theory coverage of this event on this website....the argument has always been about not covering the conspiracy theories in tremendous detail in this article. The primary issue we have always had was who we would reference and what level of detail we would go to. The conspiracy theory proponents always want more, so as far as where I stand I prefer no mention.--MONGO 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * you are missing a point i am trying to make. There are very relevant and notable people like Richard A. Clarke talking different things about 911, and yet you guys guarding this article are trying to pretend that every alternative view is coming from wacky non-reliable and irrelevant sources. !!! Shame on you. 175.100.34.115 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe testimony of transportation secretary recorded on C-SPAN is reputable enough 175.100.37.226 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * youtube was a quickest link i found, however, it is obvious that there is a c-span resource showing the same thing. if we agree it deserves WP:DUE, i will find original link.202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think you understand how this works. You bring reliable sources, or you don't insert anything. Until you bring reliable sources, you are soapboxing. This is your last warning. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * so let's see if i got it right this time:
 * Bolton, M. Kent (2006). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-creation. Rowman
 * somehow a book from this author deserves to be in the article, whoever he might be, but i guess Richard Clarke's book is, self-published?
 * BTW, there are dozen books allowed in Further Reading section. How come you didn't complain about those.. I guess you won't complain about the addition of a new one, by someone more notable for the events.
 * Richard, A. Clark (2004) Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror


 * Oh, wait, there's citing of a self-published books even in Sources section, so maybe, just maybe we actually can use Clarke's book as a source for information in this article as well? In fact, there are few dozen books used as sources... so my question to you guys is, how do you judge the merit of a book before you let it go in the article, or as is case here, when you want to dismiss it as, to quote some "fringe... irrelevant... not reliable..." Where this vastly different treatment of books comes from? Can you enlighten me, as I personally cannot see why his book is so much less significant than those few dozen books already used as sources in the article.


 * If you want third party source, I see Slate magazine was already used as a source in the article, so maybe we can use it again:


 * 175.100.42.251 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Clark's book is a reliable source, and is being cited in the article in question, so you pass in that regard. Now what is it you wish to add to the article? I am trying to see what it is you want added from your previous posts but I'm not seeing it. Please be as concise as possible, as any additions to this already bloated article should be short and to the point as to not exacerbate the problem. --Tarage (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Awesome. So somewhere in the "Investigations" section, or maybe even at the end of "Planning of the attacks" section:
 * ... Hijackers were people that CIA had known were al Qaeda and were in the United States....
 * ... Somewhere in CIA there was information that two known al Qaeda terrorists had come into the United States. Somewhere in FBI there was information that strange things had been going on at flight schools in the United States....
 * 124.248.191.82 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a statement from "counter-terrorism tzar". Whether you believe it or not is your thing. BTW, wikipedia is not about "believability" but about verifiability. I tend to think that a person in charge of counter-terrorism for the FBI knows a bit more than you or me on the issue... no? Whether it fits into the rest of the story is not that relevant... Planes flying into buildings for 100+ minutes without being shot down by the world's most powerful air-force and anti-air defense is also unbelievable, yet that's how it is, and that's what the article describes... as should be. 175.100.45.169 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * also in the culture section, to borrow from the U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks, In their 2007 book, Without Precedent, 9/11 Commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that 9/11 conspiracy theories had grown primarily because of problems in the previous [NORAD] story about the planes... 175.100.45.169 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We already note in the article that the CIA knew al-Hazmi and al-Midhar were al-Qaeda operatives living in the United States and did not promptly disclose this to the FBI. That said, I am not entirely satisfied with how it is included at present.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, from the current description it is not clear that CIA knew it for months. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More good sources with more detailed info: ''Our review also found that the CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. In addition, the FBI did not assign sufficient priority to the investigation when it learned in August 2001 that Hazmi and Mihdhar were in the in the United States. While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks. ''

Also, special agent's testimony... nice info about Intelligence v. Criminal Investigation issues...  202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is already bloated as it is, and as User:The Devil's Advocate pointed out, it is already mentioned. If you feel more needs to be said, please propose a change, but remember, anything longer than a sentence or two will probably be too much. --Tarage (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also please consider registering an account. I'm having trouble telling the IP editors apart. --Tarage (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No account needed, thank you. In regards to change, I already gave few proposals.. My POV is that current article understated the failure of FBI and CIA in preventing some terrorists, and that that should be corrected and stated more clearly. I am sure other editors can further improve my proposals if needed. If the article is bloated, maybe some less important info can be left out. Cheers! 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'reconstruction' and 'memorial' sections can be condensed, as this article is about attacks... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Make things easier for me. A lot has been said and I'm still getting lost in what is quoted text from books and what is suggested changes. Just put a "Before: blah blah blah. After: Blah bleh booh." Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why waste time...it's just another IP here screeching about the lack of fringe junk in the article. Were not going to add junk some once-upon-a-time-expert said before he got his ass shitcanned...--MONGO 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MONGO, your wisdom inspires me! 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I chose MONGO for my username because I knew people associate that name with wisdom.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To reply to Tarage, CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. can be placed in CIA investigation section in place of the current mention of hijackers.. as this makes it clear that failure was not in not knowing, but in not using knowledge. And for the MONGO, this was written by the Office of the Inspector General, not by the shitcanned person you refer to... Also, justice.gov reference I think is more appropriate than current one of conservative think tank. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you are suggesting we insert a direct quote, the above change is not what I asked for. Either way, please provide a before and after like I requested. Also, let's keep it civil folks. --Tarage (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 202.8.74.139...were not adding that LIHOP garbage to the article.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarage, I gave enough specific suggestion for the improvement of the article. It's now upon editors with account to accept or reject. Wikipedia is collaboration, so go ahead and collaborate on this instead of constantly objecting and rejecting and whatnot.. Cheers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MONGO, nice that you can speak in plural, like as if you know what everyone else thinks.. Some people may suggest you are not only wise but psychic as well. I unfortunately do not have those powers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Were not your minions....you want the article to change then create a username and start editing....otherwise all you're doing here is soapboxing. Yes, I am psychic...I predicted accurately that 2012 would not be the end of the Earth.--MONGO 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add my support for MONGO's comments above. The contributions from 119.82.253.45 and 202.8.74.149 (? same person) is is really taking soapboxing to the limit, whilst hiding behind an unregistered IP address - this is where my "conspiracy theories" come in! Also support comments from Tarage.  I strongly advise keeping article as it is. David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * David, so to get this straight, citing government's official sources that mention things you dislike... is soapboxing and conspiracy theory pushing. Congratulations. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IP Editor: I am going to ask you one more time, please provide a clean and simple before and after segment so I know exactly what you are attempting to add. I'll even give you an example.
 * Before: "The dog was lazy."
 * After: "The dog was tired after a long day."
 * That's all I want. I am not a mind reader, and I will not try to guess your intentions and edit for you. If you do not wish to create an account, my offer is the only offer you are going to get. Tell me exactly what you want edited in the format I provided, or your edit will not be considered. I think I have been more than fair. --Tarage (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before: " He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI."
 * After: "CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them."

The material you wish added might be better in the article September 11 intelligence before the attacks which needs a lot of work anyway.--MONGO 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It can be added there as well, there are many repeating statements in this article and its forked pages... I don't understand why section in this article already mentioning CIA/FBI investigation shouldn't be clear enough. You didn't make this proposal for the less clear statement which has been in the article for a while. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then YOU can create an account, add the material YOU think is needed and see.if it stands. Stop coming here screeching that it's up to us to do your editing for you.--MONGO 11:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * how hypocritical.. if i had account and made a change there would obviously be a revert war by you as you dislike the change profoundly it appears. your WP:OWNership of the article is obvious. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can I add my total support for Mongo's comments above. This correspondence has gone on for far too long with the anon. unregistered person commenting, but not prepared to test their views. As I have previously said, I see no reason for hiding behind a IP address when they can create a account for themselves.  I'm sure I speak for everyone that no-one here is going to edit for them. David J Johnson (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, provide what I asked for, or drop it. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * your response is beyond ridiculous. i gave you a suggestion in the format you asked for, and you still keep ignoring it. Fill your user page with your warnings, i don't give a damn about them. I am sick of editors like you quasi-discussing and collaborating but in fact acting so passively aggressively. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon re-reading, it appears you did provide what I asked for. My apologies, I missed it. I'll look it over and leave comments shortly. --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay so I have a few problems with it. One, it uses the phrase "We". Unless this is meant to be a direct quote, Wikipedia does not use the word "We", "I", or any other word of the sort. If it is a direct quote, it shouldn't be added anyway because it lacks a context. Lastly, I don't really see much difference between what is there and what you want to change it to. All it does is say that the both the FBI and CIA failed. Here's my counter draft.

"The Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conducted an internal review of the agency's pre-9/11 performance and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI. Critics have responded that the FBI did properly exploit the information available to them."
 * Would this work? --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right that two versions are very similar, which ony makes the above comments of some users even more interesting. The one I found in official document just sounds more clear to me... Your new version includes all the info from both, so might be best, and you can add new official govrnment reference to it as well. Not sure which reference the last sentence comes from... ps. yes, I was thinking of placing the direct quote.. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of the conflict comes from your instance to remain an IP editor. While that is your decision, it makes trying to follow the conversation difficult. Any other IP editor can sneak in and start spouting insane statements and it looks like it's coming from you. Anyway, I'll make the edit a little later on, unless anyone objects. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I object but mainly because this article is already overly broad and lacks focus and this has the tint of conspiracy theory meddlesomeness to it...if it's that important to the IP poster they should create their own account and add it themselves and see if it stands.--MONGO 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Object Totally agree with Mongo's comments above. We have given the IP editor many chances to register and present his views, which they seem unable to do. The correct place for their theories is one of the many "conspiracy" sites on the internet. This discussion has gone on far too long and perhaps we should apply for page protection? David J Johnson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally I'd be against adding anything put forward in this manner, but I guess I don't see the conspiracy theory angle in this at all. All I see is a small elaboration that people find fault in both the CIA and FBI. Since we already explicitly mention that fault was found in the CIA, and this is a reliable source, I don't see the problem with the above addition. What part of it is setting off warning flags with you? --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Tarage and thanks for your reply. My only concern is that we appear to have the same person editing from multiple IP addresses with very subjective quotes.  That person dos not appear to want to edit the article themselves, but expect other editors to carry-out their edits.  If the IP editor feels so strongly then they should carry-out the edits themselves and see if they stand. As for the "conspiracy theory" angle, as mentioned above the quotes are very subjective and is already alluded to in the present article and why  does the person involved appear to be editing from multiple addresses?  Rightly so, anyone can edit Wikipedia - but I see no reason for constantly hiding behind IP addresses.  With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy angle is that it's hard to explore the roles and relationships that existed at the time.  The CIA was walled off from the FBI through laws.  Neither the CIA or FBI (or Justice Department) was responsible for immigration.  Since the structure of the government changed massively after 9/11 (Homeland Security now controls immigration and the Patriot Act and FISA courts are where this information is shared.  So in hindsight, the IG can be critical that the CIA didn't break or even nose up to the law at the time.   There is already a sentence about what the CIA didn't do.  Juxtaposing it against what the FBI did/didn't do would be a synthesized connection that the IG of the CIA didn't make.  The sentence in the article is adequate for what the IG said but adding more about the FBI would require an entire background of how those agencies were allowed to interact as well as assessing if DoJ/FBI was even the right place to report them or if it would have been the state department to deny visas.  There's an interagency connection being made with the additional wording that I am not sure exists in the source.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To me this explanation sounds like a conspiracy theory. You say it is hard to explore roles and relationships... and yet you did it so succintly in a single paragraph. If you just go to the source referenced, read the two paragraph conclusion section in it, you will see that no synthesis or original research was done in the proposed change. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * BTDT. The edit is completely unnecessary because it's already covered accurately.  It's too complex without details and details make a burden for no benefit. Your version is unduly critical (synthesized with cherrypicked quotes) and to flesh it out to show the criticism in context leads us back to the current version.  There is simply no value to it.  The FBI IG finds nearly all the issues were systemic institutional issues and states that even if they did all the things the IG cited differently, it's still unknown what would have happened.  It's too much to address to keep it in proper tone and perspective and cherrypicking quotes is counterproductive to that.  For example, these two terrorists entered the U.S. in January 2000, (a year before Bush was in office) and this is listed as one of the opportunities.  But it never says why the FBI would have any reason to find them.  The U.S. has millions of immigrants every year including some like the Boston Marathon terrorists that become citizens and the FBI is now almost entirely focused on counterterrorism.  It wasn't until late August 2001 when they learned these POS's were part of Al Qaeda and that's when they actively started searching for them.  So no, I oppose your edit.  In fact, after reading what we have and the source for it, it may need to be removed too.  If it's too watered down for you, it references the intelligence before the attacks page where the details can be included.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition, the tag teaming IP's is not acceptable. There's a reason why we don't allow anonymous proxies or tor nodes to make IP edits and this is in that category.  A single IP address that's consistent is okay.  Multiple IPs is a form of proxying and should be discouraged with extreme prejudice.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can read this failed proposal: Restrictions_on_Anonymous_Editing_from_Shared_IPs which refered to the mainspace.. but I see you are even more ambitious, and would like to push it into talk pages as well. Double fail I would guess... The moment WP stops anonymous editors from participating, I will stop participating... and hundreds of thousands of other contributors I am sure... So go ahead, re-vive above and similar proposals... and stop bothering IPs in discussions till then. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * tl;dr;nr. My only proposal was for you, not policy.  You fail to identify yourself as being the same person either with an account or even using a signature.  Until then, different IPs are different people making different requests.  Please start a new section each time you change IP's.  Please feel free to edit mainspace articles as an IP without any discussion necessary (seriously, it's not a policy, everyone can edit!).  Be BOLD and implement what you see fit with appropriate, reliable sources.  You don't even need an edit summary so we really don't ever need to read your opinion of ANY edit! (Isn't that a superawesome win-win for everyone!?).  If your only participation is 9/11 talk pages though, I've already lost too much sleep over losing your incredible insight and edit supervisory abilities. Thanks for all that you do!  --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I give credit to Mongo for his tireless contributions to this article. I also too agree with Mongo, but I will put it my own words and I won't be shy about it. This article is not the place for every crackpot, unsubstantiated, and downright fabricated theory. This article only deals with the facts and the "real" truth, not the "fake" truth. This article only needs to mention that "conspiracy theories" exist, but does not need to name or label each one. We have an article for the fiction already. No need to repeat the untruths. If someone wants to push their agenda then they have the entire world wide web to dilute, but Wikipedia is not a place for activism, so take the crackpot theories elsewhere.-- JOJ Hutton  21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, Wikipedia doesn't report the "truth", it reports what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is wrong.  If we WP editors try to decide what the truth is, then we are engaging in original research, which is against our policies and expressly forbidden. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the sources, at least the reputable ones, already say the truth, so no problem here. Only the nutjob sources say anything different.-- JOJ Hutton  21:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment MONGO corrrect again. There's a little too much fringe and synth.  Clarke had a title in the administration but even the source for his book in his biography on WP said he embellished a bunch of stuff .  You wouldn't get that picture that the source paints from his WP article and we certainly don't need that nonsense here.  As for Cla, we are not "truthers."  Clarke is not a particularly reliable source for recollection of events prior to 9/11 nor is his self-portrait and the way he is portrayed above accurate to the sources.  He's a primary source for himself and secondary sources say he made stuff up.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with the views above that the article is already long and less focused than it could be. The suggested change, in so far as it does anything, makes those worse. It might go better in one of the more specific daughter articles. Tom Harrison Talk 12:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentAgree with the views above and support Tom's view that the article is already long and less focused. As I have previous stated the suggested changes should be in another article. David J Johnson (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentWell, given that consensus appears to be very strong against inclusion of the above edits, I will not be preforming them. I do invite the IP editor to register an account though. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reports: FBI in contact with bin Laden as far back as 1993
According to newly released court documents, the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden since 1993, but this important piece of information was apparently omitted from the 9/11 investigations.


 * FBI Never Revealed It Had Al Qaeda Mole Who Met Bin Laden


 * Special congressional panel to investigate FBI contact with bin Laden

Perhaps worthy of a brief mention somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Article "Verschwörungstheorie!" in german magazin, by Paul Schreyer
Paul Schreyer published Verschwörungstheorie! which is about his experience in Wikipedia when editing the article "September 11 attacks". --46.115.122.185 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's special...is there an English version?--MONGO 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He links to the German Wiki, not this one. Therefor, it's not really of any value to us. Thanks for pointing it out though. If you find a translation I'd love to read it. --Tarage (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, he explains the same thing that happens here on en wiki. Quite a read. 79.101.128.215 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The same stuff we have have seen here a thousand times: they won't let me put conspiracy theories in the article so all of Wikipedia and it processes are flawed. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You obviously haven't read the article but still had to "copy paste" a standard comment here.TMCk (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the first and last pages - did I miss something in the middle? (Just checked, nope.) Rmhermen (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, because the article is in German and offers no translation. From what I can understand of it (I speak very limited German), it also talks specifically about the German article, which has no relevance to this one. Therefor, it is not of any value to us, and there is nothing more to discuss. --Tarage (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the editors at the German Wiki have been done an excellent job keeping conspiracy theory stuff out of their 9/11 related articles.--MONGO 10:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not the point of the article at all. 178.221.119.111 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So what....you Google that guys name and conspiracy theories and it shows he is a conspiracy theorist... so if his efforts to promote such nonsense German Wiki were roadblocked, thats a good thing.--MONGO 11:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Wikipedia deals in facts, not conspiracy theories.  There is plenty of room on the internet for these claims, but not a factual site like this. David J Johnson (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the Bing-translated version. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are we using this talk page to discuss improvements to the article or are we just giving lip service to the POV pushing trolls? Just wondering. And by the way, this article doesn't include fiction. 12:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2 (or more)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. Snow close. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – I know this has been discussed before, but 9/11 is by far the most commonly used name, it's time we recognize this. Charles Essie (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note what appears to be the last title change was discussed here. —  AjaxSmack 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose.--MONGO 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the short 9/11 is too ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SUBPAGE we should not use subpage locations when avoidable. Also per Dicklyon, that's just ambiguous, and could easily mean September 11, November 9, September 11 AD, November 9 AD. And it is frequently known as "September 11th" so I don't think 9/11 is by far the most commonly used form either. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry but 9/11 is not just an abbreviation, it is nearer to slang/shorthand. An encyclopedia requires the minimum register of a reputable printed source not a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been discussed before and for all the reasons mentioned above. David J Johnson (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree on the basis of COMMONNAME, and most people understand the term 9/11, but 9/11 could be misconstrued by some and I don't think that's there's anything wrong with the current title. JOJ  Hutton  12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per all above. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 9/11 is ambiguous, the current title is more recognizable. Changing the title to 9/11 doesn't help anyone. Zarcadia (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When has the term "9/11" ever been ambiguous, has anyone here honestly heard someone use the term 9/11 while referring to some else? Charles Essie (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The dates September 11 and 9 November for starters. Zarcadia (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposal, yes the term has other meanings, but it's most commonly used to refer to this, how about a compromise, let's move this page to 9/11 and create a new disambiguation page titled 9/11 (disambiguation). Charles Essie (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all the reasons given above. 9/11 is too ambiguous, as already stated. Please accept consensus. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * New proposal, How about 9/11 attacks? Charles Essie (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC) currently shown
 * Oppose Please just accept consensus. This topic has been discussed before and agreed as currently shown. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving, not helpful.  - WPGA2345 -     ☛    02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Tarage (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not according to WP:USEENGLISH guidelines. 9/11 is referred as September 11 in US English. ApprenticeFan  work 04:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose No. November 9 is not relevant and confusing.  September 11 is much more universal and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 is not used to refer to 9 November? If so I think you would benefit from reading the article Calendar dates. Also, please make sure you sign your posts Zarcadia (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Did you not comprehend that I said the exact same thing you did?  I suggest you read it yourself.  Signed -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't take offense, I honestly didn't understand the point you were making. If you meant that 9/11 can mean 9 November and confusing as unrelated to this article then I think we're on the same wavelength. Zarcadia (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm not aware of anything happening on 9 November. This is English Wikipedia (i.e. English language), not American Wikipedia. Too ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

--

LOL
This is, by far, the most pathetic article regarding 9/11 from all Wikipedia projects.

The section "9/11 Commission" is particularly charming. Not a single word about conflicts of interest, resistance to investigation, unreliable evidence, limited scope and "set up to fail".

No. Let's transform this Wikipedia article into a US government press release with a "en rose" approach to the subject.

Nice job, guys. Dornicke (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The censors would do the project a favor by respecting and answering valid criticism made by users, instead of censoring them and labeling such users as "trolls". Dornicke (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide specific suggestions for improving the article, and you'll be taken seriously. What you've posted above is just vague complaints and taunting, removed per NOTFORUM. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So let me repeat my "specific suggestion, since you didn't see it: "The section "9/11 Commission" is particularly charming. Not a single word about conflicts of interest, resistance to investigation, unreliable evidence, limited scope and "set up to fail". Just for a start. I'll write some of my other specific suggestions later. Dornicke (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We await that anxiously.--MONGO 18:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Do you have anything to say about the lack of criticism regarding 9/11 commission in this article? Dornicke (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an entire article about criticism of the commission already: Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. What, exactly, do you think needs to be in this article, rather than that one? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We have here an article about one of the most relevent events in contemporary history. A governamental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic. Dornicke (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is probably just the most noticeable example of a larger problem,characteristic of the entire article: it completely lacks political and social analyzes. An article about 9/11 that simply does not mention the invasion of Iraq? Hey, let's make articles about the Amazon that do not mention deforestation. Dornicke (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You havent provided a single reliable reference yet...so I'll remind you know that this is not a forum.--MONGO 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, use the "let me answer like a robot" strategy. I do not have to provide "sources" to make the point I'm making. Dornicke (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its liked above...read it...this is not a forum. If you're looking for a forum the web has plenty. If you don't have a single reliable source to add that substantiates your argument then all you're doing is ranting.--MONGO 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no requirement that presenting sources (of what??) is mandatory for using this talk page to "discuss improvements to the September 11 attacks article". And I don't understand how criticizing the article would be "forum". Dornicke (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have previously pointed out (see my post above) that the FBI failed to inform the 9/11 Commission that they had a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden. Perhaps it's worth a mention? source -A1candidate (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's absolutely relevant to the article. Dornicke (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hear we go again. A series of trolls trying to push their conspiracy theories yet again. Please stop, as others have pointed out. there are even pages on Wikipedia relating to criticism of the 9/11 Commission, keep your "comments" there and not on this Talk page - which should be devoted to improving the article and not for your POV theories. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@David J Johnson - There's an article on criticism of the 9/11 Commission, but not the FBI's role in the attacks. Also, I don't see any good reason for keeping all sorts of criticsms in separate forked-out articles. That's not how Wikipedia works. -A1candidate (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Warning: If anyone here calls other editors names again, like "trolls", I will be reporting you to ANI. Grow up people.  Dornicke and others, please list more references you think should be used on criticism of the 9/11 commission. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering that both ANI and ArbCom consider it perfectly acceptable to call other editors "cunts", I doubt if any action will be taken over "trolls". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The the real LOL is that Cla68 is lucky his 3 month block last year didn't become permanent...so his concern that the word troll has been used here is about as hypocritical as it gets. Regardless...I don't see much substance with the Daily Telegraph reference provided by A1Candidate. I don't see it as anything more than what it is...namely a morsel of nothingness that the conspiracy theorists live to build a mountain around.--MONGO 23:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to nip this one in the bud. Dornicke, either bring reliable sources that support what you are arguing, or take it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a forum, and if you don't have reliable sources, you will not be permitted to drone on. Period. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Again: "I see no requirement that presenting sources (of what??) is mandatory for using this talk page to "discuss improvements to the September 11 attacks article". I could see the point if I wanted something to be added to the text. Not the case here. I'm talking about general whitewashing on the text. You don't like? I don't care. And I won't tolerate people telling me that I should "present sources or shut up", much less threats such as "final warning". Dornicke (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay...you think the article is whitewashed. Feel free to edit it and add what you think it lacks and see if others agree. No idea what you expect to accomplish on the talk page except to post a complaint, which you have already done, repeatedly.--MONGO 01:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on Mongo. You know very well that if it is not the "government's mainstream view" it'll survive only a few seconds, no matter the quality of sourcing.TMCk (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't knew about the "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission" until today, reading this thread. Whatever the OP's stand, it just shows again how this article reads like a federal statement of what exactly happened, leaving out anything (fringe aside) that is not conform with our government's view. It's sooooo obvious and thus ridiculous. Not thinking myself that will change in the near future but still, it would be nice if that would happen at some point... before files would be declassified. We have plenty non-fringe reliable sources to do better in giving average readers enough information (w/o having to dig further) to make up their own mind, which with all that is known to be a fact would be that our government's view [since when do we trust them actually? Tax Day is coming and I doubt the majority would trust the government's IRS] is mostly right but sure not 100% as they're self serving and try to hide their shortcomings just like you and me. Try to call me wrong on this... bah... TMCk (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you and other conspiracy theory POV pushers are only capable of ranting and complaining but you never produce any references that can stand the test of reliablity and other policies? That's a rhetorical question...we already know why.--MONGO 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah, Calling me a "conspiracy theory POV pusher" is itself a conspiracy you got there running yourself :P TMCk (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still zero substantive references!--MONGO 15:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is it that you and other conspiracy theory POV pushers are only capable of ranting and complaining but you never produce any references that can stand the test of reliablity and other policies?
 * Have no idea, but you seem to be a little obsessed by that topic - after all, the only person talking about "conspiracy theories" here is you. I'm talking about Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. That is not a "conspiracy", much less a "theory", it's pretty much the factual reality, as known by every one and reported by several mainstream, independent sources. Feel free to continue your "holy war" against "conspiracy theory POV pushers", but you're losing your time here. If you want to talk about conspiracy theories, there's an entire article about that. Here, I'm talking about factual history, as told by mainstream sources. I thought that was pretty much clear by now... Dornicke (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've not provided a single reference to back up your complaint. You keep providing us with your opinion yet provide us with zero references or article edits. Stop wasting our time.--MONGO 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you feel you are wasting your time, then just ignore it. I'm talking to the community of editors here, not with you, your approval is not necessary for anything. We can deal with your absense with absolutely no problems. My complaint is not related to a "reference", my complaint is about the "style", the "writing" of the article. You can't fix that problem with references. So references have nothing to do with my complaint. If that's still not clear now... well, I'm sorry for you. I'll have wait for opinions of editors that understood my complaint. Dornicke (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Time for you to stop reverting, Dornicke. You've reverted five times in a 24-hour period and have had three different users tell you no. That's a pretty strong indication you aren't correct here. Toa  Nidhiki05  16:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. Editors that were not even involved in the discussion. Which means they just received messages telling them to revert my changes and were not even following the discussion. Dornicke (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bin Laden
There is a part of the article where it is said "Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks," This is quite irritating as there is no evidence of this. According to the documentary "Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11", it is said that the Osama Bin Laden HAS NOT been indited for the 9/11 attacks on the FBI website. This claim, which is highly likely to be credable based off the professionalism and research undergone to create the documentary, needs to be addressed. If not, then this article will have a very important piece of information which is highly invalid, hence rendering the rest of the article unreliable. This article is viewed a large number of the American Public and as such must be kept factual at all times to prevent the Shifting of hateful attitudes from passive to Aggresive racism towards Middle Eastern people. Both this comment i have made here and the "opinion" stated in this article are bias, however it is mine that is more valid and reliable as it contains actual factual information rather than ignorant or misguided information. Peace and love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Master Sage (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses mainstream reliable sources to determine the content of its articles. The documentary is a fringe source written with a specific agenda, and does not trump multiple mainstream reliable sources. It may be worthy of mention elsewhere, but is not a basis for rewriting the article. The documentary has been out for seven years and gotten little or no traction outside the Truther community. The media's response to the work has been tepid or derisive: see the Guardian, for instance .  Acroterion   (talk)   15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014
"other properties" is too vague. Change text to hyperlink pointed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Todd Stiebinger (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But that surely wasn't the only other property damaged. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Other properties refers to all the buildings described in the Damage section - not just 7WTC. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

❌ - for reasons explained above - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Ventura 97 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Bin Laden, Holy War declaration; deadlink + fake info
Link 11 is dead, has been for who knows how long, the thing is the information is fake, the first one to call it a "Holy War" was Bush, which might sound hilarious but how many times did Bush embarass the US? Im not going to source but if you guys cant remember ill refresh your memories, Bush made the mistake of calling it a Holy War before Bin Laden used the term, it was taken as a declaration of fact, and the pope was quite displeased, since the pope is the only one with the authority to declare a war as a holy war, its a matter of religion and politics, point is either way its a deadlink and im sure someone else who cares twice as much as i do can find a source and erase the info. Im too lazy to do it but there it is, if someone cares do it. Darkuu (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome. As discussed at WP:REDLINK, we do not remove most information simply because a particular URL no longer works. I added a link to the archived page. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

silly question
how come WTC 1 and art center did not go down, but WTC 7 did which was further away? any sources that discuss this? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WTC 1 was destroyed in the attacks. The reasons WTC collapsed are discussed in more depth at 7 World Trade Center. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What is WTC1 on this image ? i think it is not one of the twin towers.. and i think it was not destrayed... 173.165.58.86 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's WTC 1, which was destroyed. The twin towers were WTC 1 and WTC2. Note that One World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center have since been built, you may be confusing the new building with the old.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * i guess one of the maps may be incorrect: so there is a building in between wtc1 and wtc7. how come it is not destroyed? 173.165.58.86 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ehm, do you mean 6 WTC? It seems to be the building between WTC1 and WTC7. And it also seems to have been destroyed on 9/11. SK (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks! that answers the question.. because mostly twins and wtc7 are mentioned in discussions... 216.80.122.223 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

9/11
There should be a clarification that 9/11 actually mean "November 9" in most parts of the world (≈91,5%) and that care should be taken to avoid miscommunication.

Even though the English Wikipedia is in English, it should not assume a USA-centric/cultural view on matters/articles.

There are 760 million English speakers in the world and in USA there are 248,3 million that speaks English as their native language, that's only about 33%. Even if you add the 58,1 native English speakers of UK the percentage only goes up to about 40%.

So about 60% of those that speak english have different backgrounds and cultures, and all these 456 million English speakers are a potential user of the English Wikipedia.

So please try to write in a cultural-neutral way and don't assume that everything is done/written/used/handled in the same way all over the world.

I have meet people who believe "9/11" really did happen in November...we should try to be clear enough that people who read a wikipedia-article don't misunderstand anything based on cultural background and also make sure that people understand that stuff (like 9/11) might be interpreted in another way in just about every other country but USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 (talk)
 * The first sentence of the article begins with "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)..." and there's a further explanatory footnote. Do you have any suggestions on what else to add? --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR applies here. Since this article is about an event that occurred in the US, and has strong ties to it, the correct formatting should be that which is used in said country. --Tarage (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity of bin Laden confession tape for NPOV
This good faith edit I made has been reverted twice with no real justification. The paragraph I added is sourced from 4 WP:RS news articles. Plus in my opinion it fully adheres to Wikipedia's three core content policies in particular WP:NPOV but also WP:VER & WP:NOR. Any chance of some descussion on this before it is reverted again? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the normal process of WP:BRD is that your bold edit was reverted and now you should seek consensus through discussion. You should not keep readding content without any real discussion and the onus is on you.  In my opinion, your edit added a trivial bit piece of information that is unnecessary in such a long article.  The view that OBL was involved is widely held.  That view has been held since the moment of the bombing and also includes suspicions in the prior WTC bombing, USS Cole and embassy bombings in Africa.  Cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan in the Clinton years to strike at OBL confirm this belief.  The tape authentication process is trivia unless there are reliable sources claiming OBL was never involved.  Since this is not the case and there are no reliable sources that claim OBL was not involved, the addition of that type of material in the lead or the article is trivia that implies doubt where none exists. --DHeyward (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ok, well I think there should be some level of doubt/scepticism about all information and I do feel my addition is fully justified under WP:NPOV. Anyway I won't revert again and will see if there is any interest in obtaining a consensus on whether or not this bit of information should be included. Thanks again for your response Screamliner (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already uses too many older news sources and the ones you were adding were also ancient.--MONGO 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm against inclusion on the basis that it doesn't really add anything to the article, and the article itself is already quite verbose. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with comments above from MONGO and Tarage. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive 9/11 conspiracy theories article and even an article describing how many people believe these (Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories)). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally. As an example, the article Assassination of John F. Kennedy includes both a section corresponding to Part 1 and a sentence in the lead corresponding to Part 2. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Part 1: Should a new section be placed in the article that explains the presence of these conspiracy theories, describes some of the more common ones and assesses their popularities and reputations?
 * Part 2: Should a short sentence be placed in the lead to say that conspiracy theories exist?

Repeated attempts to post puerile nonsense about death rays from space and the like have been appropriately deleted from this talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
No, the single sentence in the article as of this revision is plenty. See also the FAQ and the (extensive) talk page archives. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk page archives show constant objections from users.. quite a few users desire more mention of these alternatives opinions. For example, placing it under 'cultural' section was objected, then not mentioning the deception from certain government organizations which caused Congress to consider filing criminal charges, etc.. and this being one of the reasons for alternative views to be strengthened, etc... many many objections... 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article deals with facts not fantasies. We have the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles which deal with the fantasies.--MONGO 16:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @71.194.230.179: Yes, but by people who don't understand our policy on WP:NPOV. To give undue weight to wild, conspiracy theories is a violation of NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * isn't this a fact? Oh, Washington Post, you are right, it must be a fantasy. :P 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Violation of NPOV is ignoring the views of nearly half of population, and all the facts that don't go along the mainstream view presented in the article. 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of policies, why is SUBPOV being violated here? 71.194.230.179 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We provide coverage based on reliable sources and subject to our policy on fringe theories, not poll results. Why do you think SUBPOV is being violated? VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think what was quoted above is unreliable or fringe? Your comment makes no sense. 64.134.169.187 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * VQuak's comment is quite clear. Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources, not polls or conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many confirmed sources on disagreeing facts (i.e. those linked above) as well as conspiracy theories. In regards to polls, I thought that that was one way of figuring out what mainstream is: Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. Nobody here talks about inclusion of information from unconfirmed 'conspiracy theories', but only of inclusion of verified and well written about topics. Why is it that some users fail to observe this distinction? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I peeked in the above conversation, and have to say that I do agree that the conspiracy theories are not given the weight they are due in this very lengthy article. It is deserving of its own subsection, and I say this after reading the wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Even the weather has its own subsection! In fact, the source given for the current single sentence about the conspiracy theories, is itself a lengthy diatribe devoted to the subject at hand. And while I was inspecting the source, I found that it does not say anything at all about the level of support from the historian or scientist community. So while the reference does help to establish the notability of the subject, it does not actually support the sentence in the wikipedia article. Smitty121981 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no level of support from sane historians or sane scientists. Of course there are the Wackos and Charlatans for dah "truth"...um.--MONGO 11:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * um... your biased position has been made clear: any scientist who agrees with your personal beliefs is "sane" and any scientist that disagrees is a "Wacko" without regard for their actual status, such as having a prominent position in a major university.
 * When we actually take an objective look at the existing literature, we find that there are several peer-reviewed articles/letters published in scientific/engineering journals that lend credence to various aspects (but certainly not all) of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.    But I am not here to argue the strength/weaknesses of these theories. I am here to state emphatically that given this level of professional involvement, one sentence is simply not enough coverage in an article of this length. Allow me to quote from the first source: "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." Smitty121981 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have an article that talks about the insane ramblings of terminated professors....its. called 9/11 conspiracy theories and that's not the only article we have to examine their opinions. We link to that article from this one....that's food enough. You conspiracy theory POV pushers are never happy...you always want more of your nonsense in the article.--MONGO 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I am not here to "push a POV" -- unlike yourself, I have avoided stating my personal opinion as to the validity of the conspiracy theories, and have relied upon reliable sources instead to make my point that they deserve more than a single sentence mention. I noticed that you completely ignored the quote I posted about hundreds of professionals, officials, and academics questioning the official story of 9/11. Here's four more peer-reviewed publications that research aspects of the "conspiracy theory".   Smitty121981 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Bentham nano-thermite letter (it was not an article) has been rejected many times, and Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Wikipedia at large. The nano-thermite argument remains a fringe topic taken seriously only within the Truther echo chamber and has no place in this article. The Manwell paper, according to its abstract, as about discourse in public policy relating to state crimes, and as far as I can tell doesn't revolve around 9/11 conspiracy theories. While fringe elements in academia and some professions have endorsed conspiracy theories, they do not represent a significant view and are not taken seriously by mainstream media, their parent institutions or their professional organizations.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above and also MONGO's contribution. This article deals with facts and not conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * About the Harrit et al paper - when you stated it "has been rejected many times", why did you not provide any sources to verify the validity of these rejections and why do you think a rejection of a single paper makes the topic of 9/11 conspiracy irrelevant? "Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Wikipedia at large." And if Bentham was the only publisher represented in the nine excellent sources I provided, you might have a point. However, only two of the sources were published by Bentham. Look closer at the Manwell paper, it portrays 9/11 as a possible state crime against democracy right there in the abstract, and the full text can be found through google Scholar. What about the incredibly relevant quote I posted from it that so far all three of you have ignored?
 * In conclusion, I have gathered several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article. I gladly welcome sources to the contrary, but thus far all criticisms of my stance have ranged from the unsourced to outright ad hominem attacks. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sources to verify the validity of its rejection" amounts to asking for proof of a negative: the talkpage archives discuss the issue at great length, with the conclusion that is is an interesting mention of a fringe theory that has been inflated by conspiracy enthusiasts into a "peer reviewed paper", which it is not. The abstract I saw of Manwell didn't even mention 9/11, and it doesn't appear from what I saw that acceptance of a conspiracy theory is central to that publications content. Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists, the Szuladziński et al paper is simply a critique of Bazant and not an endorsement of conspiracy theories, the Poteshman insider trading is discussed and at September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories and rejected by the 9/11 Commission as explained. The sources you've produced either reject conspiracy theories or give them scant mention, apart from the Bentham letter, whose "nano-thermite" has itself been disputed as indistinguishable from normal oxide primer. The common thread in all of the conspiracy theories (and this is a classic feature of any such theory, not just 9/11) is cherry-picking inconsistencies and granting them undue prominence, or of extensive confirmation bias. There is no coherent narrative to any of this, and no support in credible academic or journalism sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Acroterion for acknowledging and addressing the sources that I took the time to compile! I'd like to briefly respond to your points.
 * Harrit et al - I see that you are referencing the consensus on the wiki about the paper, so I accept that it is currently not considered a reliable source for this article.
 * Manwell - Here is the link to the journal listing. Specifically, the abstract states "Terror management theory and system justification theory are used to explain how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq." Later on in the article, they state "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections."
 * Bazant - I absolutely agree with you that "Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists", and that's why I think it is significant that three separate authors have published discussions critical of his work in the same journal (JEM) in which he published his famous paper on the collapse of the Twin Towers (Gourley (not listed above),Grabbe,Bjorkman). And it is significant that a full paper was published in a separate journal that, as you said, was also critical of Bazant's work (Szuladziński).
 * I listed the Poteshman paper because insider trading is part of the conspiracy theory and more recent research has come to similar conclusions. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in effect, it's some vague allusions you've pulled from an abstract and papers that ignore or dismiss the conspiracy theories (criticism of Bazant is not acceptance of CT), as support for inclusion of a CT discussion in the article, despite minimal sourcing and nonexistent support from scholarly and journalism sources?  Acroterion   (talk)   23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support adding 2-3 paragraph section on the conspiracy theories and it looks like we have sufficient support for the addition. I would suggest posting your proposed text here, and we can tweak before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cla68, I will write something up and post it on the talk page for feedback.Smitty121981 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If by "sufficient support" you mean high-quality references, there's a long way to go. Specifically, the often-asserted claim that AE 9/11 is something other than a fringe group is countered by this in . The Guardian, hardly a friend of the US government, has this, which also mentions the refutation of the insider trading rumor. Where the mainstream media (which we depend on to establish weight) notices 9/11 conspiracies at all, that example and this companion to the Guardian piece , which uses the word "preposterous", are typical examples.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to hold this discussion. Even if there was WP:Local consensus for this suggestion, it would be completely meaningless until WP:NPOV were changed.  I suggest that you open an WP:RfC and lobby to have NPOV changed.  After you've convinced the community to change this policy, then come back and talk to us.  Until then, this suggestion is completely meaningless.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AQFK, I note that your objection is based on your interpretation of WP policy. You appear to be trying to use "argument from authority".  I and a few others don't agree with you.  Again, I welcome Smitty's proposed addition and we can comment on it. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, WP:NPOV is very clear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. " We don't get to override policy just because we feel like it.  If you don't like Wikipedia's rules and are unwilling to change them, then please feel free to fork the project. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 *  Strongly Oppose There is no consensus for adding conspiracy theories to this article. There is already a article for these ramblings and that is where such "theories" should stay. David J Johnson (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Allow me to fully quote from your first source:


 * And Manwell's sources are... (drum roll)... the website http://patriotsquestion911.com/, David Ray Griffin's 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor (note 4, pg. 874, ), and, of course, the usual suspects of Jones, Ryan, Harrit, Gourley, Szamboti, etc (rimshot).


 * The "discussion" comments by the non-qualified, non-specialists, Björkman, Gourley, Grabbe, and Szuladziński (yes, it's actually four) are best summed up with some quotes from the closures to those discussions:


 * The claims made above that the sources provided represent the gathering of "several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article" is not supported. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for the lengthy and constructive response. I am aware of the published rebuttals to the discussions, but this just further establishes that there is currently a professional debate(i.e. published in prominent engineering journal). Also, Manwell's interpretation of those sources passed peer-review. Please read my suggested change below, I think I worded it in a way that makes it clear why these references are applicable.Smitty121981 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So here's my proposed change, which I feel is consistent with the rest of the article. This would be a sub-section in the "Effects" chapter, just like the Weather sub-section. I tried to take into account the concerns brought up in this conversation: I kept it much shorter than the suggested 2-3 paragraphs to avoid giving undue weight, I did not use any sources published by Bentham, I avoided any mention of thermite, I did make sure to include the two Guardian articles provided as well as several new sources from major news networks, and of course (despite preemptive claims to the contrary) I made every effort to maintain WP:NPOV.

Conspiracy Theories

 * Further information: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon. Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials,  and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories.

Smitty121981 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sources don't support the proposed text. "Despite their persistence..."? What? The only reason 9/11 conspiracy theories have not been accepted by the academic and scientific communities is because they are bullshit... you know... conspiracy theories. Thank you for wasting my time. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, "persistent" did come from the sources: "Among the most persistent post-9/11 rumors was..." and "So what is the attraction of conspiracy theories? And why are they so persistent?". However, I am certainly open to civil suggestions for improvement (no one asked you to spend any time here). Smitty121981 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The persistence of conspiracy theories is not related to their lack of acceptance by the academic and scientific communities. Conspiracy theories are rejected because they are incorrect, unsupported, and non-factual. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will change the wording to be less open for interpretation.Smitty121981 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose including this nonsense. There's already a page for this junk, and it's not this one. This article is about facts, not fringe nonsense. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose above wording, as it does not make clear that these conspiracy theories are bollocks. More generally, I find it unlikely that I would be convinced that any expansion of coverage of CTs in this article was editorially favorable. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposeAs I have previously stated above, there is already a page for these fringe theories, which have no place and need no reference in a factual article. David J Johnson (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, the criticisms seem to be confusing notability for credibility. I am certainly aware that the article is about facts - that's what the 14 reliable sources are for. Furthermore, my suggestion is not unwarranted: At the top of this talk page, it states "There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article" and the suggestion there is to expand the coverage of Conspiracy Theories: "I'd at least suggest that a paragraph or two be added to cover these; given the prevalence of these theories, it seems a shame to not really address them." Smitty121981 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a group 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. That is why we have an article about them. That does not mean that they are going to be covered in increased depth in this article. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's a good start on a paragraph, but the text shouldn't be in WP's voice.  Instead of, "These theories are fueled, in part, by evidence of insider trading before the attack", it should say something like, "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack," and so on. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the helpful critique, the change has been made above. Do you have any suggestion on how to better word the "Despite their persistence" bit? I went through a lot of versions already as I was writing this and unfortunately that's the best I could come up with.Smitty121981 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As ever, expanding on the conspiracy theories in this article would give undue weight to a fringe view. Tom Harrison Talk 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a lot of people's minds are made up before even looking at what I wrote? Please take the time to absorb the references, I think I established the notability. If not, could you please give constructive criticism on how to better establish it?Smitty121981 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to see an expansion on the discussions of falsehoods in an article which discusses the known facts. You've already been shown that we already have entire articles dedicated to discussing those falsehoods...there isn't any reason to give undue weight to those falsehoods here.--MONGO 11:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any "falsehoods" in the text I wrote for inclusion? If so, I will gladly revise it. Apparently, adding this one little section is all that stands in the way of Good Article status. Given this, I honestly cannot comprehend why most of the editors here are so vehemently opposed to the idea that they are willing to reject it without even taking the time to consider what I wrote. I know that 9/11 is emotional; wikipedia should not be. Smitty121981 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good or Featured article "status" are subjective issues and neither mean a thing in the scheme of things. If the only thing standing between this article and getting that "status" is inclusion of preposterous fantasies concocted by those morons who refer to themselves as Architects and Engineers for truth then that "status" is not welcomed. We have taken (more then you deserve) the time to examine and address your points, but you fail to see that there isn't any support for your changes. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you have zero interest in article improvement....all you want is your conspiracy theory bullshit in the article.--MONGO 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be honest, I don't understand what all the "status" things mean. All I know is that what I am proposing is not 'bullshit', but is actually a suggestion for improvement on the top of this talk page, and I have been trying very hard to be civil about my approach (sorry if it wasn't). I did what I thought I should do, which is start a conversation here rather than modifying the article directly. A review of the discussion will show that I have listened to several editors who have made constructive criticisms, so clearly I am interested in article improvement. If a reasonable amount of time goes by and I do not receive enough support to make the change in the article, I will drop the subject - until then I have the right to civilly take part in the discussion. Some comments from editors here are sounding a lot like taking ownership. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cla68's comment concerning the use of Wikipedia's voice is correct. Apart from that, the paragraph gives undue weight to an inconsistent set of rumors and armchair theorizing described in mainstream sources as "preposterous." Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, doesn't give much weight to the preposterous, and really shouldn't give any. "Hundreds of professionals and officials" gives false standing to academics and professionals who have strayed outside their specific expertise to espouse easily disprovable fallacies. All professional fields have fringe enthusiasts. The trading rumors have long been disproved as unrelated and should not be discussed as if they are credible. It's long been my view that Wikipedia is too easygoing about granting even superficial credibility to conspiracy theories in general and the inclusion of fringe viewpoints in the name of a false balance, while the mutable nature of Wikipedia encourages people to try to make these theories become a ratified fact via a credulous account in Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I like Cla68's new phrasing below, which revised the whole "hundreds..." bit, is that any better? Also, is there a reliable source about the trading rumors being disproved? I ask because two separate authors in two separate journals came to similar conclusions, and I know you already brought up the 9/11 Commission Report(2004) but it was published before either of those papers (2006,2010). The Guardian vaguely mentioned something about it, but not enough to follow up on, and Google didn't turn up anything for me either. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a third reliable source for the insider trading, in which the authors describe several "transactions on the CBOE which can be associated with informed trading activities" with 13 of them being "related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" Smitty121981 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You found an academic source that speculates using statistics: it postulates insider trading, against actual investigation of the trades that concluded that the acknowledged unusual trading was entirely unrelated. It's a good example of never letting the facts get in the way of one's thesis. From the 9/11 report: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades...", which the paper nevertheless attributes to foreknowledge. More to the point, it is a narrow discussion of the trading patterns, not of the conspiracy theory.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So there is one reliable source from 2004 that came to the conclusion that insider trading did not occur (9/11 Commission report). Then there are three later reliable sources (Poteshman 2006, Wong 2010, Chesney 2010), written by different authors and published in different journals, that all came to the conclusion that insider trading did occur. This shows, if nothing else, that there is legitimate controversy and it is not a settled matter. The 9/11 Commission Report, no matter how reliable, simply cannot 'erase' legitimate research that is completed years later. Plenty of sources include insider trading as part of the conspiracy theories, including The Guardian article which you provided. Maybe there is a different way to word the sentence so that it fits more with your line of thinking? Smitty121981 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can. The trades and traders were investigated and no link to the 9/11 conspiracy was found. Whether one can speculate using statistics is interesting, but statistical analysis and drawing speculative conclusions don't trump an actual investigation. The investigation flatly said there was no link between the trades and the event: the papers say that the trades look like they were linked, and ignore the fact that that was disproved by a criminal investigation.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that is cherrypicking. To further address your point, the third source (Chesney) is a thorough research paper written by members of the the Swiss Banking Institute, the Swiss Finance Institute, and the University of Zurich - and these experts "perform an analysis at the level of single option contracts." In contrast to regression models they "use a different approach and empirically show the information content in specific trades." They did not just analyze trading related to 9/11 but across a time period of several years and state, "[Our] approach enables us to detect informed trades which would not have been detected when analyzing a period around a specific type of event." Finally, they link several specific instances of informed trading to 9/11:"In total we detect 37 transactions on the CBOE which can be associated with informed trading activities: ...13 related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" and "For the banking sector we detected 14 informed trading activities,... 5 [related] to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" There is simply no way that all of this research is somehow invalidated by a footnote in a report compiled several years earlier. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cherry-picking?" Do you seriously believe that a statistical analysis negates the results of a criminal investigation that specifically reviewed the market activities? This material may be useful at the conspiracy theories page, if written appropriately, but as I and others have clearly stated, the entire exercise is undue weight and credibility given to conspiracy theories. I have no interest in discussing this further with you: you appear to have moved into direct promotion of fringe theories and are bordering on tendentious editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is how I would word it:  Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon and have been embraced by a number of commentators, public officials, and celebrities.  Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack and have criticized the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of a fire-induced progressive collapse.  None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy problems with this are manifold, but WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE are a good start. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I like the new wording! Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose really the variety, type, and incredulity of the multitude of distinct CTs don't justify "widespread" description. Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box that they themselves oppose in order to gain a semblance of notability is improper use of how fringe views should be handled.  Wikipedia cannot be the place where these dots are connected into monolithic view when they are really tiny fringe groups that all blame different groups.  Combining Israel with Space Lasers to Thermite to WTC7 CTs and lumping them together to firm up the notion of "widespread" is misleading.  We really have a number of CT's each with a tiny fringe that are unrelated to the other tiny fringe groups.  Whence, none are widespread.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box" was done for us, by the sources. It is our job as editors to report what the sources say, no to re-interpret them. Even the title of source 2 is "September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound". 'Abound' meaning "exist in large numbers or amounts." Are there any reliable sources that suggest the 9/11 conspiracy theories are anything but wide-spread? Smitty121981 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The plural of "theories" is what abounds, not adherents that are credible sources for each of those theories.  The people that believe are Barbara Olson was abducted by aliens is incredibly small and irrelevant. The internet is abound with hundreds of whacky theories but none have depth..  --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source which states: "there is ample evidence that some conspiracy theories are not at all confined to small segments of the population. Overseas, 'a 2002 Gallup Poll conducted in nine Islamic countries found that 61 percent of those surveyed thought that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.' ... The widespread belief that U.S. officials knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen or even brought it about may have hampered the government’s efforts to mobilize social resources and political support for measures against future terrorist attacks." Smitty121981 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nobody takes these fringe theories seriously within the context of 9/11 and neither should this article (see WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY). Wikipedia strives to be a respected encyclopedia, and devoting an entire section in this article to conspiracy theories just makes us look silly.  That is not to say that conspiracy theories aren't a topic worthy of serious study, but this is not the right article or even the right field of study.  9/11 is ultimately a subtopic of history which is a field studied by historians.  9/11 conspiracy theories is ultimately a subtopic of psychology which is a field studied by psychologists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. The argument posed about being in the proper field of study is interesting. Certainly, psychology is a field that studies conspiracy theories. So is sociology. But some would say, so is history. In "Enemies Within The Culture of Conspiracy" published by Yale University Press, history professor Robert A Goldberg makes the case that "conspiracism [is] essential to an understanding of history and society" and in a lecture by the same name published by the Florida Atlantic University's Dept. of History (PDF), he states:
 * Clearly Goldberg, and Cass Sunstein who I quoted above, place a great deal of weight on the conspiracy theories even though both have rejected the theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you've missed my point about context. The reference in which you cite is not about history in general, it's about the history of conspiracy theories.  What I said was that 9/11 conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, mentioned within the context of the 9/11 terrorist attacks themselves.  Instead, you provided a reference about 9/11 conspiracy theories within the context of the history of conspiracy theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about sources like this? It's an interesting point, but how do you defend it given that sources like these also don't mention anything about any of the other sub-categories in the "Effects" chapter? "Health Issues"? Not there. "Weather"? Certainly not! "Economic"? "Cultural"? "Government Policy"? No, yet all of these sections are well-referenced. Clearly, the article already has scope well beyond the context of those particular type of sources to which you referred; and I have established that conspiracy theories have as much, or more, weight than these other current sub-categories. Imagine a source saying that a 3-day increase in the temperature range is "essential to an understanding of history and society"! Smitty121981 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Why are we doing this song and dance again? I'm going to wait a week and if consensus doesn't drastically change over the course of that week I'm just going to archive this, because there is absolutely nothing new here. --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , have you seen the [|C-SPAN clip] I referenced above? That's very new (less than a month old). Also, the [|Szuladziński paper] is fairly new (2013). A week sounds very reasonable to me, hopefully there is a middle ground that editors can find in that time. Smitty121981 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to do quite a bit of leg work to get consensus to change. I do not envy the work ahead of you. MONGO probably won't ever agree, but you might be able to sway some of the other editors if you remain civil. My problem with all of this is that the song and dance has not changed. The talk page archives are littered with POV arguments such as this one. Please take time and listen to what the editors have said and try your best to address them. Good luck. --Tarage (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tarage for the friendly advice. Maybe if there wasn't a suggestion from experienced editors at the top of the talk page to expand the Conspiracy Theories section as a way to improve the article, less people would come to the talk page to suggest this very thing? Or maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to actually work together, and come up with something that (serious) editors can agree upon? Smitty121981 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment To all the editors who keep linking to WP:FRINGE, here is what it says: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." By this point, I have cited literally dozens of reliable sources that do just this. Some editors challenged some of the sources (thank you) - these were either removed, or defended by finding other sources that agree. Remember, "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." and most of my sources have been the ideal "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". And here is what the WP:NPOV page says (emphasis mine): " Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." I welcome serious and polite comments, preferably with specifics. Thank you. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The main problem with the proposals above is that they violate our guidelines on fringe theories, and our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability by presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories as if they are part of some on going debate among qualified professionals or scholars in the appropriate fields (e.g., labeling the known facts as the "prevailing theory", or by citing submitted journal comments by well known, non-qualified, non-specialist, conspiracy theorists as if they carried any weight, etc.). The "theories" advanced by the "truth movement" have been debunked, dismissed, discarded, or ignored by effectively all of the published, mainstream, authoritative, and reliable sources on the topic. The coverage of these conspiracy theories in reliable sources does mean that they satisfy WP:NOTABLE, and are thus acceptable for possible inclusion in Wikipedia. However, satisfying the requirements for possible inclusion does not make any of the claims made by adherents notable for anything other than being conspiracy theories. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that I have established some notability! Hopefully now we can work on finding a wording that can be agreed upon. In response to your criticisms, it seems like you might not have seen the new C-SPAN source? They clearly do not "debunk, dismiss, discard, or ignore" the conspiracy theories, rather they give a prominent adherent an entire 45 minute segment of Washington Journal to present his theories. Also, it is a fact that several authors have published critiques in major engineering journals, whether or not you think their critiques are valid. The editors of the journals apparently found them sufficiently qualified for publication. The real question you hit on though is how to describe what are they critiquing? I think "prevailing theory" usually would imply a great deal of certainty... however, I do understand the concern because in the context of this paragraph the word 'theories' is also being used to refer to concepts that are considered nonfactual, and the current wording might seem to equate the two. Suggestions on how to get around this? Perhaps "accepted scientific theory..." would work better? Smitty121981 (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose again!! A final comment before I disappear for a few days! I really fail to see why this is still being discussed. The consensus of opinion is that the comments bySmitty121981 have no place in this article, there already being an article for fringe theories. Why are we still discussing this? David J Johnson (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Smitty, could you please repost your proposed addition? I'd like to comment on the current proposal.  And I request that the few other editors here who keep trying to close this discussion down please try to control yourselves.  We've got a 'pedia to build here. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I support Smitty's proposed addition as currently drafted at the top of this section.  Smitty, I suggest you open up a formal content RfC with your proposed paragraph for inclusion in this article.  You need an RfC in order to get wider participation than the regulars here. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New comment
I'm going to ask the regulars here to please stop revert-warring on text additions you don't approve of. Unless it's clear vandalism, discuss it first BEFORE removal. When you revert good faith efforts to improve the article, you are rebuffing new editors and probably making WP's editor flight problem worse. The main objections to the addition, after two rude reverts, appear to be "the sources are old" and "I don't like it that much." Good grief, what a welcoming attitude towards other editors. This is the kind of thing that makes participating in Wikipedia suck. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that. I know we run the risk of scaring off editors who do not presently understand WP:NPOV (as opposed to some we want to run off, those who want to edit their own POV into the article, regardless of NPOV), but many of us are tired of explaining why the same edit has been rejected by consensus and because of policies and guidelines, time after time after time after time after time [repeat].  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you don't fully agree with WP's editing model. WP, as it currently exists, is founded on content that is constantly in flux as editors come and go and change, improve, or add text to articles.  When editors try to control an article through revert-warring and constant threats of sanction, as is occurring on this page, then that is against WP's operating model. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014
I do note see in the international response section that indeed many in the Palestinian territory were celebrating.

199.255.44.5 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Richard Schwaninger
 * We can't add that unless you can find a reliable source for it. Even then, the America haters will say it's biased.--MONGO 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Snopes verified it back in 2008. It's also in our article on the reactions to the attacks, here. Does a mention belong in this article under "reactions"?  I wouldn't object. Antandrus  (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the article is near the upper limit of WP:LENGTH. IOW, if we add too much to the article, we have to decide what we want to delete to make room for the new content.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Excessive length is easily dealt with by spinning out sections to daughter articles, leaving a summary in place. There is no need to delete in order to add. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if this wasn't a contentious topic and editors were fine with spinning out daughter articles, but that hasn't been the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the size becoming unmanageable, adding everything under the sun about 9/11 makes the article unfocused. It might be better if Investigations could be consolidated into one or two paragraphs. Tom Harrison Talk 11:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New Congressional inquiry section
I don't know why this hasn't been there before - except maybe that Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 wasn't a very good article. But since it's been in the news lately I got a bee in my bonnet last week and beefed it up considerably. Could use more work, but a pretty respectable article now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that you meant "2002", not "2012". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This text seems to rely excessively on primary sourced references and appears to SYNTH-sequence various statements without presenting secondary RS which contextualizes or establishes that these are the noteworthy facts about the inquiry. If this can't be sourced to secondary materials and reoriented to what secondary RS find most significant, I suggest we remove the section. SPECIFICO talk  17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Quest: thanks for fixing.
 * @SPECIFICO (fancy your following me here!) As it happens I'm working on more refs for the main article right now that can be used here, but must take a break. You can surely give me a few hours before you delete it all? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to avoid taking out or adding significant amounts of material without discussion. In this case, if there's a disagreement it may be easier to work it out at  Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO: Carolmooredc has never edited this article before until now. You have never edited this article before until now. Previously, both of you clashed with one another in the Austrian economics topic space which led to community sanctions and eventually an ArbCom case, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics where both of you presented evidence against one another and both of you were sanctioned by ArbCom. Now, by some miracle of coincidence, you just happen to show up here after Carolmooredc does?  Even stranger, your first and only edit is....drum roll please...to revert Carolmooredc?  Are you stalking Carolmooredc edits?  Can you give me one good reason why you shouldn't be sanctioned again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'll say about the WP:Wikihounding is to share this link to a recent ANI I posted.
 * However, content wise, the criticism is rely excessively on primary sourced references and then he takes out everything except two primary sources! Note I was motivated to put this here because Jake Tapper featured the "28 pages" story on CNN Sept 8th; and I see now there are more recent stories in the Huffington Post, New Yorker and Al Jazeera. Due to time constraints, I did not finish my research and was too busy to look for newest sources when I put this up. The new sources also provide an overview of much of the material below. I certainly don't see how this material from secondary sources is problematic and am just posting some of the deleted material here to encourage others to come over to the page, in case mass deletion happens there as well.
 * [Their report] detailed failings of the FBI and CIA to use available information, including about terrorists the CIA knew were in the United States, in order to disrupt the plots. REF: Athan G. Theoharis, editor, The Central Intelligence Agency: Security Under Scrutiny, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 222-224, 2006, ISBN 0313332827
 * Despite the joint inquiry having developed information about possible involvement of Saudi Arabian government officials from non-classified sources, REF:Ali Watkins, Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t, McClatchy Washington Bureau, August 12, 2013. the Bush administration demanded 28 related pages remain classified. REF: Theoharis (OK, so I should have removed "despite" and made it two sentences. Mea culpa.)
 * September 11th victim families, REF: Chris Mondics, Struggling to detail alleged Saudi role in 9/11 attacks, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 31, 2014; as well as members of congress are still seeking release of the documents. REF: Paul Sperry, Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup, New York Post, December 15, 2013.
 * September 11th victim families were frustrated by the unanswered questions and redacted material from the Congressional inquiry and demanded an independent commission. REF: Theoharis
 * Re: alleged synth/misuse of primary sources/etc. I won't argue that while still researching. In any case I will continue to upgrade the main article and will add more details here in the future. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I mistakenly wrote that this had been in the article for some time. That's not the case. It seems well supported, but it's value needs to be balanced against the already large size of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your revert to the original is about the size I think is appropriate, though I'll always take another 50 or 100 words. And this is the hot investigation issue right now since Obama promised to release the 28 pages and the Supreme Court is allowing the families to sue the Saudis - who want the documents released! And there are Congress people, not yet quoted in main article, saying that reading the 28 pages changed their whole view of the world and US foreign policy. So it's going to be a high profile tug of war for a while. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What's needed is secondary RS which summarizes the mainstream view of what is most important about the report and its conclusions. We have no RS which looks at the whole report and identifies the Saudi bit or even the redactions as being the primary message or conclusion of the report and its research.  Tom Harrison, you're an admin.  I reverted a recent edit.  Now that you know that, why don't you consider undoing your reinsertion while Carol and others locate content which can pass muster.  If you think my criticisms of the first draft are off the mark, please explain why.  Greenwood Press is hardly the place I'd look for a comprehensive, balanced summary concerning this investigation and report.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of SPECIFICO's WikiHounding of Carolmooredc at AN/I. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for intimidation-free zone
I would like to propose that this article talk page be declared an "intimidation-free" zone. Accordingly, I propose that we all agree that we will be more welcoming to editors who come here trying to improve this article by:


 * Not revert-warring on this article talk page
 * Not closing or "hatting" a discussion if specific article improvements or modifications are being discussed
 * Not threatening other editors on this talk page with sanctions, topic bans, or blocks
 * Not making any derogatory or personal comments about conspiracy theories or any other aspect of the 9/11 topic area
 * Not leaving snarky, smug, or condescending edit summaries

If you agree please sign below. I will, of course, be the first to pledge:


 * 1) Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Smitty121981 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories and disruptive editors who POV push the will continue to rejected here, as they have the past 9 bazillion times they were brought up. I reserve the right to hat people demanding we cover death lasers from space as well as point out how stupid that theory it. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  01:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments should not have been closed for two reasons: the Monday Night Football effect and the Bush 43 administration's failure to acknowledge intelligence on 6 August that warned of an Al-Qaeda attack in the US...starting with the intelligence: even the 9/11 Commission determined that the Bush 43 administration "dropped the ball" when they were informed on 6 August of an attack on US soil. Conspiracy Theorists (CTers) use this fact to make the ridiculous claim that the attacks were an "inside job". All conspiracy theories have been debunked. Quite simply, it was the Bush 43 administration's incompetence that led to this tragedy. "Monday Night Football Effect": at the time of the attack, Monday Night Football on ABC began their games at 9pm Eastern time. This invariably led to a situation where millions of people in the Eastern time zone would report to work much later than usual on Tuesday mornings, and the attacks occurred on a Tuesday morning after a Monday Night Football game. And, the New York Giants played the Denver Broncos the night before the attacks, meaning that millions of New Yorkers stayed up late to watch the game. At the time of the attacks, the Port Authority estimated that, at that time of the day on any other weekday morning, about 25,000 people would be in the Twin Towers combined. That number was broken down into 10,000 employees per tower and 5,000 visitors among both towers. The fact that less than 3,000 lives perished in and around the Twin Towers proves the "Monday Night Football Effect". In other words, this tragedy/terrorist attack was already bad, but, it could have been much worse if Osama bin Laden chosen another morning during the work week. 2601:7:1C80:28:D0CB:D7A6:E574:30F3 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Weather?
"The average diurnal temperature range throughout the United States increased markedly in the three days following the attacks. Some research suggests that the absence of contrails caused by the grounding of all planes in the United States immediately thereafter was responsible for some of this increase." Should this really be part of this article? Tom Harrison Talk 11:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Is there another article where this might be appropriate or should we just delete it?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's covered in detail in the Contrail article already. It's probably best to remove it from this article, due to a lack of reliable sources linking it to 9/11 history in a significant way. Also, I did a little more research just now and it seems many researchers have disputed the hypothesis, for example: "We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails." Smitty121981 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good removal: it was tangential at best.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014
Please change: " The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror ...." to " The United States responded to the attacks by launching what the then US President called "The War on Terror" ...

Reason - The phrase "...launched the War on Terror..." implies in the context of an encyclopedia that it was exactly a war on terror, which is a gross simplification and at least somewhat a misrepresentation of what was actually occurring. The phrase "War on Terrorism" might have been a little closer to at least the stated intent of the action, but given that throughout its history the U.S has committed or abetted actions that could easily be considered terrorism, while not simultaneously warring against the terrorism that it (the U.S.) itself has caused, indicates that a reader should be given a pretty strong notice that this phrase carries some baggage, without needing to read a different page about it. On the page, as it stands, the uppercase letters do not give this warning strongly enough. The quotes suggested above are better, but including the source of the phrase is more explicit and clear. Thanks.

StephenRSchwartz (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My only objection is that it wasn't just the president who used that term. It was used globally. Using the above sentence would put too much emphasis on one person. --Tarage (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think StephenRSchwartz or Tarage bring up unreasonable points. It might be useful for someone to research what sort of phrasing contemporary reliable sources use.  But I don't think it's terribly important for this article to explain this since readers can click on the War on Terror WikiLink and get much more detailed information about this term.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As an editor coming from CAT:ESP, I'd have to agree with A Quest For Knowledge here in that the change isn't necessary. The term is wikilinked and most sources would use the phrase as a proper noun to refer to that campaign. I'm marking this as answered. It doesn't mean discussion is closed; just so it's no longer transcluded onto CAT:ESP. Stickee (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)